Alternative statutory remedy bars writ challenge to ex parte provisional assessment, with liberty to seek reopening on sufficient cause.

Provisional assessment orders passed after notice served only the previous day were treated as ex parte for want of adequate opportunity, but the writ petition was not entertained because the statute provided an alternative remedy to seek setting aside of an ex parte assessment on sufficient cause being shown. The Court reserved liberty to pursue that statutory remedy and directed that any application filed within the prescribed time should be considered on merits and not rejected merely for delay.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging provisional assessment orders was maintainable in view of the alternative statutory remedy under Section 32 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008, and whether the one-day notice before passing the provisional assessment orders amounted to denial of reasonable opportunity.

Analysis: The provisional assessment orders under Section 25(1) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 were passed after notice served the previous day, and the Court treated them as ex parte orders for want of adequate opportunity. However, the Act itself provided a specific remedy under Section 32 for setting aside an ex parte assessment order and reopening the case on sufficient cause being shown. Since that statutory remedy was available, the writ jurisdiction was not entertained. Liberty was, however, reserved to invoke the statutory remedy, and the application was to be considered on merits and not rejected merely on the ground of delay if filed within the stipulated time.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained because of the alternative remedy under Section 32 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008, and the petitioner was left to pursue that remedy.

---