Efficacious statutory remedy bars writ challenge to ex parte provisional assessment orders under tax law

A writ petition challenging provisional assessment orders under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act was held not maintainable where the statute itself provided an efficacious remedy under Section 32 to set aside an ex parte assessment and reopen the matter. The Court noted that a reasonable and adequate opportunity must be given even in provisional assessment proceedings, and that giving only one day to respond treated the orders as ex parte. However, because Section 32 allowed consideration of absence of notice or sufficient cause for non-appearance, the writ jurisdiction was not invoked to bypass that statutory remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging provisional assessment orders under Section 25(1) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 was maintainable in view of the statutory remedy under Section 32 of that Act.

Analysis: The impugned assessment orders were treated as ex parte because the petitioner was given only one day to respond. The Court held that, even in provisional assessment matters, a reasonable and adequate opportunity must be afforded. At the same time, the statute provided a specific remedy under Section 32 to seek setting aside of an ex parte assessment order and reopening of the case, with power to consider absence of notice or sufficient cause for non-appearance. Since that remedy was available, the writ petition was not entertained.

Conclusion: The challenge to the provisional assessment orders was not entertained and the petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory remedy under Section 32 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute provides an efficacious remedy to set aside an ex parte assessment order and reopen the case, writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be invoked to bypass that remedy.

---