Writ jurisdiction and alternative remedy: factual disputes over property character should be left to statutory tax appeal processes.

Article 226 writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not invoked where an efficacious statutory appeal is available, because the court applies self-imposed restraint and departs from that rule only in a strong and exceptional case. The commentary notes that the dispute depended on factual determination of the character of the property and the nature of the transaction, including whether the switchyard was movable or immovable property. As that issue required assessment of evidence by the taxing authority, the writ court was justified in relegating the party to the statutory appeal under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, and intra-court interference was not warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition ought to have been entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India despite the availability of an alternative statutory appeal under Section 62 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, and whether the dispute required a fact-finding enquiry best left to the statutory authorities.

Analysis: The existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction, but the power under Article 226 is subject to self-imposed restraint. A departure from the ordinary rule is justified only where a strong and exceptional case is made out, such as where the alternative remedy is illusory or inefficacious. The controversy here turned on the character of the property and the nature of the transaction, including whether the switchyard was movable or immovable property. That question depended on factual determination and assessment of the material by the taxing authority, rather than direct adjudication in writ jurisdiction. The precedents cited by the appellant were found distinguishable because they involved different factual or legal settings where writ intervention was warranted on their own facts.

Conclusion: The writ court was justified in relegating the appellant to the statutory appeal, and no ground was made out for interference in intra-court appeal.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the order declining writ relief was sustained because the dispute was suitable for statutory determination rather than direct constitutional adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory appeal is available and the controversy requires factual investigation, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked absent a strong and exceptional case.

---