Statutory appeal and settled validity barred writ challenge to input tax credit denial under the VAT scheme.

Writ jurisdiction was held unnecessary where rejection of input tax credit under the VAT assessment order could be challenged before the statutory appellate authority. The challenge to the impugned circular and to the validity of the provision denying input tax credit on packing material for finished goods transferred outside the State had already been considered in earlier proceedings, and the legislative scheme had been upheld. The Court also noted that the earlier intra-court challenge and subsequent special leave petitions had not altered that position. In that background, the writ petitions were not entertained and were dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions challenging rejection of input tax credit, the impugned circular, and the validity of Section 6(3)(d) of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2006 could be entertained in view of the statutory appellate remedy and the earlier decisions upholding the same provisions.

Analysis: The relief relating to rejection of input tax credit on the assessment order was found to be capable of redress before the appellate authority under the VAT statute. For the remaining reliefs, the Court noted that the same statutory provision and circular had already been considered in earlier litigation, where the High Court had upheld the legislative scheme denying input tax credit in respect of packing material when finished goods were transferred outside the State otherwise than by sale. The Court also noted that the challenge had already been carried through intra-court appeal and that the Supreme Court had dismissed the special leave petitions. In that background, the Court found no reason to re-examine the settled questions.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not entertained and were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory appeal is available against an assessment order, and the constitutional and statutory validity of the governing provision has already been upheld in prior proceedings, the writ jurisdiction need not be invoked to reopen the same issues.

---