Alternative remedy bars writ relief where a statutory revisional remedy exists and has not been shown ineffective.

A writ petition challenging rejection of a request for C form declarations was held not maintainable because the impugned order was revisable under the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act. The court applied the principle of alternative remedy as a rule of self-imposed restraint in writ jurisdiction and found no showing that the statutory revisional remedy was inefficacious or unavailable. The fact that the petition was filed before expiry of the revision period further supported directing the petitioner to the statutory forum. The petitioner was therefore directed to pursue the revisional remedy rather than invoke writ jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging rejection of the request for issuance of C form declarations was maintainable in view of the statutory revisional remedy under Section 45 of the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act.

Analysis: The impugned order was revisable under the statute, and the petitioner had not shown that the statutory remedy was inefficacious or unavailable. The principle of alternative remedy operates as a rule of self-imposed restraint in writ jurisdiction, and a writ petition should ordinarily not be entertained when the statute provides an efficacious mechanism for redress. The fact that the writ petition was filed before expiry of the revision period reinforced the need to direct the petitioner to the statutory forum.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and the petitioner was directed to avail the revisional remedy.

---