Alternative statutory remedy limits writ review where factual disputes and jurisdiction objections can be raised on appeal.

Where a fiscal statute provides an efficacious statutory appeal, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should ordinarily not be used to re-examine assessment orders involving disputed questions of fact. The court held that objections based on absence of reasons and lack of jurisdiction could be raised before the appellate authority, which was competent to consider them, so the writ appeals were not maintainable and the parties were left to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ appeals challenging the assessment orders were maintainable in view of the statutory appeal under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, when the dispute involved factual questions and the jurisdictional objection could be raised before the appellate authority.

Analysis: The appeals arose from assessment orders passed under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The Court noted that the appellants did not dispute the existence of an alternate statutory appeal, and that the very same controversy was already pending before the appellate authority in connected matters. It held that where disputed questions of fact arise, the writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not undertake fact-finding when the statute provides an appellate forum. The Court also held that the grievance regarding lack of reasons and want of jurisdiction could be urged before the appellate authority, which was competent to examine those contentions. Relying on the settled principle that writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked when an efficacious alternative remedy exists, especially in tax matters, the Court found no ground to bypass the statutory appeal.

Conclusion: The writ appeals were not maintainable and were dismissed, leaving the appellants to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: When an efficacious statutory appeal is available under a fiscal statute, especially where disputed questions of fact are involved, the writ court should ordinarily decline to entertain the matter and require exhaustion of the alternative remedy.

---