Alternative remedy rule bars writ challenge to reassessment orders where an effective statutory appeal exists.

An efficacious statutory appeal under the value added tax law barred direct recourse to writ jurisdiction against an assessment or reassessment order. The High Court distinguished authorities dealing with reassessment notices, holding that they did not govern a direct challenge to an order. As no recognised exception to the alternative-remedy rule was made out, the Court declined to examine the merits of the reassessment dispute. The writ petition was therefore not maintainable, and the assessee was required to pursue the appellate remedy; the matter was remitted to the appellate authority for decision on merits in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition challenging an assessment or reassessment order was maintainable when the statute provided an effective appellate remedy.

Analysis: The Court held that the availability of a complete statutory mechanism for redress, including an appeal under the value added tax law, barred direct recourse to writ jurisdiction. The judgments relied upon for maintainability dealt with challenges to reassessment notices and did not govern a direct challenge to an assessment or reassessment order. The recognised exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy were not attracted on the facts, and the Court therefore declined to examine the merits of the reassessment controversy.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and the assessee had to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.

Final Conclusion: The common order of the writ court was set aside and the dispute was relegated to the appellate authority for decision on merits in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory appeal is available, a writ petition challenging an assessment or reassessment order should not be entertained unless a recognised exception to the alternative-remedy rule is established.

---