Alternative statutory remedy principle under VAT law: writ declined, but direct Tribunal appeal permitted on special facts.

Statutory appellate remedies under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act ordinarily bar writ intervention under Article 226 where an efficacious hierarchy exists, including a first appeal under section 26(1) and a further appeal to the High Court under section 27. A challenge based on inconsistency with an earlier Tribunal decision or a proposed constitutional issue does not, by itself, justify bypassing that mechanism. On the peculiar facts, however, the petitioner was not sent back to the first appellate authority and was allowed to approach the Tribunal directly within six weeks, subject to the required pre-deposit, with limitation not to operate against the appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the assessment order should be entertained in view of the statutory appellate remedies under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002, and whether the petitioner should be relegated to the appellate forum or granted liberty to approach the Tribunal directly.

Analysis: The statutory scheme provides a complete hierarchy of remedies, beginning with a first appeal under section 26(1) and culminating in an appeal to the High Court under section 27. The availability of such an efficacious alternative remedy ordinarily warrants judicial restraint in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The circumstance that the impugned assessment may be inconsistent with an earlier decision of the Tribunal or that a constitutional issue is sought to be raised does not, by itself, justify bypassing the statutory mechanism. At the same time, the Court noted the peculiar facts, including the pendency of the writ petition for a considerable period and the proposed constitutional challenge, and considered it appropriate not to send the petitioner back to the first appellate authority.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained on merits, but the petitioner was permitted to prefer an appeal directly before the Tribunal within six weeks, subject to compliance with the requisite pre-deposit, and limitation was directed not to stand in the way of such appeal.

---