Alternative remedy rule cannot bar writ review where material facts on return filing and input tax credit were ignored.

A writ petition should not be dismissed for alternative remedy where the assessing authority has ignored material factual issues central to the dispute, including delayed supply of credentials for online filing and the alleged inability to file returns electronically or manually. The revisional remedy under Section 54 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 was not treated as an adequate substitute for judicial review in these circumstances, particularly because the impugned order reflected non-consideration of relevant facts affecting reversal of input tax credit. The dismissal on the ground of alternative remedy was set aside, the assessment order was quashed, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration and a fresh order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition could be dismissed on the ground of availability of a revisional remedy when the assessing authority had not considered crucial factual issues relating to timely issuance of registration and the alleged inability to file online or manual returns.

Analysis: The order under rectification did not examine the material questions whether the password for online filing was supplied belatedly and whether manual returns were prevented. Those factual issues were central to the dispute on reversal of input tax credit. In such circumstances, the existence of a revisional remedy under Section 54 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 was not treated as an adequate answer to the writ challenge, since the revisional remedy was not equivalent to an appeal and the impugned orders suffered from non-consideration of relevant facts.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy was set aside, the assessing order was quashed, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration and a fresh order.

---