Alternative statutory appeal bars writ intervention when challenge concerns improper exercise of jurisdiction, not total lack of jurisdiction.

Where the grievance concerns improper or illegal exercise of jurisdiction, rather than a complete absence of jurisdiction, and an efficacious statutory appeal is available, writ jurisdiction need not be invoked. The Madhya Pradesh HC noted that challenges to the assessment under the M.P. VAT Act were capable of examination by the appellate authority on facts and law. The writ petition was therefore not entertained, and the petitioners were relegated to the alternative appellate remedy without examination of the assessment on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the availability of an alternative statutory appeal, and whether the assessment order could be interfered with on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

Analysis: The petitioners challenged the assessment to tax and entry tax under the M.P. VAT Act, 2002, contending that the assessing authority acted without jurisdiction. The Court found that the grievance was not one of absence of jurisdiction, but of alleged improper and illegal exercise of jurisdiction. In such a situation, the appellate authority was competent to examine the facts and the legality of the assessment order, and the existence of an efficacious statutory appeal justified relegating the petitioners to that remedy.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained and the petitioners were relegated to the alternative appellate remedy.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the assessment order was left to be pursued before the statutory appellate forum, and the writ petition was disposed of without examination of the merits of the assessment.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the grievance is against the manner of exercise of jurisdiction and an efficacious statutory appeal is available, writ jurisdiction need not be invoked.

---