Writ jurisdiction restrained by effective statutory appeal, with no clear natural justice violation shown in assessment challenge.

An efficacious statutory appeal under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 was available against the assessment orders, and no exceptional ground such as lack of jurisdiction or a clear violation of natural justice was shown. The High Court applied the self-imposed restraint that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not exercised where an effective alternative remedy exists, and declined to entertain the challenge to the assessment orders. The grievance of insufficient opportunity of hearing was also rejected because the record indicated notice and hearing had been afforded, and no clear denial of natural justice was established. The appellant was left to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ appeal could be entertained despite the availability of an efficacious statutory alternative remedy under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. (ii) Whether the assessment orders were liable to be interfered with on the ground of insufficient opportunity of hearing.

Issue (i): Whether the writ appeal could be entertained despite the availability of an efficacious statutory alternative remedy under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963.

Analysis: The statutory appellate remedy under Section 34 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 was available to assail the assessment orders. The rule against entertaining writ proceedings when an efficacious alternative remedy exists is a self-imposed restraint and not an inflexible bar, but it applies unless exceptional grounds such as fundamental-rights violations, breach of natural justice, or lack of jurisdiction are made out. The case did not present a situation of inherent lack of power or any other exceptional circumstance warranting bypass of the statutory appeal.

Conclusion: The objection based on alternative remedy was upheld, and the challenge to the assessment orders in writ jurisdiction was not entertained.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment orders were liable to be interfered with on the ground of insufficient opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: The record showed that notice and hearing had been afforded, and the grievance of inadequate opportunity was examined only to the limited extent necessary to decide maintainability. Since the writ petition was being declined primarily on the ground of alternative remedy, and since no clear denial of natural justice was established, interference with the finding on opportunity was unwarranted.

Conclusion: No interference was called for on the ground of opportunity of hearing.

Final Conclusion: The availability of an efficacious statutory appeal was treated as decisive, and the writ appeal was dismissed while preserving the appellant's right to pursue the appellate remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory appeal is available, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will ordinarily not be exercised unless a recognised exception such as lack of jurisdiction or violation of natural justice is established.

---