Alternate statutory remedy bars writ challenge to fiscal assessment when an appellate remedy is available under the tax law.

A writ challenge to an assessment order under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act was treated as inappropriate because the statute provided an efficacious appellate remedy under Section 62. The settled principle applied was that Article 226 jurisdiction is discretionary and is ordinarily not exercised in fiscal matters where an alternate remedy exists. The assessment challenge was therefore left to the appellate authority, and writ interference was declined.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a writ petition challenging an assessment order under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was maintainable when a statutory appeal under the Act was available.

Analysis: The impugned assessment order was appealable under the statutory scheme. The Court relied on the settled principle that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and ordinarily should not be exercised when an efficacious alternate remedy exists, especially in revenue matters. The petitioner's challenge was therefore not entertained on merits, and the availability of appellate redress under Section 62 of the Act was treated as sufficient.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in view of the alternate statutory remedy and was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The assessment challenge was left to be pursued, if so advised, before the appellate authority, and the High Court declined to interfere in writ jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute provides an efficacious appellate remedy against a fiscal assessment order, the High Court should ordinarily decline to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

---