Alternate remedy rule limits writ review of VAT assessments, even where jurisdictional error is alleged.

A writ petition challenging a Tamil Nadu VAT assessment was held not maintainable where the statutory appellate remedy had not been exhausted. The court noted that the appellate mechanism under the Act is the proper forum for disputed facts, assessment correctness, and even jurisdictional objections. Article 226 does not justify routine bypass of an efficacious alternate remedy, and departure from that rule is confined to recognised exceptional cases such as gross injustice or violation of fundamental rights. A mere allegation that an amended provision was wrongly applied was insufficient to invoke writ jurisdiction directly; the petitioners were directed to pursue the statutory appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions challenging assessment orders under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 were maintainable without exhausting the statutory appellate remedy, including where the assessment was alleged to suffer from jurisdictional error due to application of the amended provision.

Analysis: The statutory scheme provides an appeal to the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, a further appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, and thereafter appellate or revisional remedies before the High Court. The appellate forum is the proper authority to examine disputed facts, the correctness of assessment, and even legal objections including jurisdictional challenges. The availability of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 does not permit routine bypass of an efficacious statutory remedy. Dispensing with appeal is confined to exceptional situations such as gross injustice, violation of fundamental rights, or cases falling within recognised exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy. A mere plea that the assessing authority applied an amended provision wrongly does not by itself justify direct invocation of writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable without first pursuing the statutory appellate remedy, and the petitioners were directed to avail the remedy under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute provides an efficacious appellate mechanism, writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily be invoked to bypass that remedy, even on allegations of jurisdictional error, unless a recognised exception to the alternate-remedy rule is established.

---