Statutory remedy bars writ jurisdiction where VAT deductions in a works contract must first be decided by the prescribed authority.

A writ petition challenging deductions from bills in a works contract was not entertained because the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 provided a specific statutory remedy for determination of deductions and taxable turnover. The High Court held that, where the prescribed authority can decide the issue under the Act, Article 226 should not ordinarily be invoked on merits. The petitioner was relegated to the statutory application, and the prescribed authority was required to consider it on merits, hear the parties, and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable when the petitioner had a statutory remedy for determination of the deductions and taxable turnover under the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

Analysis: The dispute concerned deductions made from bills in relation to a works contract under the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The statutory scheme provided a specific remedy under Section 47(b)(i) for the dealer to approach the prescribed authority for determination of the issue. The Court held that where such a remedy is available, the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 should not ordinarily be invoked to decide the dispute on merits. The prescribed authority was directed to consider the application on merits, afford an opportunity of hearing, and pass a reasoned order either granting or rejecting the request in accordance with the Act.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained on merits and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory remedy under Section 47(b)(i) of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

---