Alternative statutory remedy bars writ jurisdiction, but time spent in court may be excluded for limitation purposes.

A writ petition challenging a Tribunal order was held not maintainable where the petitioner had not first pursued the statutory remedy under Section 12-D of the J&K General Sales Tax Act, 1962, namely an application to the Tribunal for reference of questions of law to the High Court, followed by recourse to the High Court if reference was refused. The Court also noted non-compliance with Rule 2(d) of the Jammu and Kashmir Writ Proceedings Rules, 1997, because the availability and exhaustion of alternative remedy had not been disclosed. The objection to maintainability was therefore upheld, but the period spent in the writ proceedings was directed to be excluded for limitation purposes if the proper statutory application was filed within the time granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the Tribunal's order was maintainable in view of the statutory remedy under Section 12-D of the J&K General Sales Tax Act, 1962, and whether the period spent in these proceedings should be excluded for limitation purposes.

Analysis: The statutory scheme provided a specific post-tribunal remedy by way of an application to the Tribunal for reference of questions of law to the High Court, with a further remedy before the High Court if the Tribunal refused to refer the case. The writ petition was filed without availing that remedy and without the mandatory disclosure required by Rule 2(d) of the Jammu and Kashmir Writ Proceedings Rules, 1997 regarding availability and exhaustion of alternative remedy. The objection to maintainability was therefore sustainable. At the same time, the Court accepted that the time spent in the present proceedings should not defeat the petitioner's statutory remedy and directed exclusion of that period for limitation purposes if the proper application was filed within the time granted.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in view of the effective statutory alternative remedy and was liable to be dismissed, while the petitioner was granted exclusion of the period spent before the Court for the purpose of limitation in pursuing the appropriate statutory remedy.

---