Alternative statutory remedy bars writ intervention where second appeal under VAT law remains available and unexhausted.

A writ petition challenging an appellate order under the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act was not entertained because an efficacious statutory second appeal was available under Section 57 before the Commissioner Tax Tribunal and had not been exhausted. The court held that issues concerning alleged inconsistency with the approved resolution plan and related tax consequences had already been examined by the authorities, so the petitioner was required to pursue the statutory appellate remedy first. The request for refund could be taken before the competent authorities in accordance with law, and the plea to avoid multiplicity of proceedings did not justify bypassing the appellate mechanism.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition should be entertained when an efficacious statutory remedy of second appeal was available under the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act.

Analysis: The challenge related to an appellate order passed in assessment proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act. A second appeal was available before the Commissioner Tax Tribunal under Section 57 of that Act, but it had not been availed. The Court held that questions relating to alleged inconsistency with the approved resolution plan and the consequential tax matters had already been considered by the authorities, and the petitioner should first pursue the statutory appellate remedy. The request for refund could be pursued before the competent authorities in accordance with law, and the plea to avoid multiplicity of proceedings did not justify bypassing the appellate mechanism.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained and was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.

---