Alternate statutory remedy bars writ interference against reassessment when appeal can address natural justice and turnover objections.

The writ petitions challenging the reassessment order were held not maintainable because the order was appealable under the Karnataka VAT Act and the petitioners had an efficacious statutory remedy. The objections on natural justice and computation of taxable turnover were treated as issues that could be raised before the appellate authority, and the restriction on remand under Section 62(6-A) did not justify bypassing the appeal. As notice had been issued and objections filed, no serious breach of natural justice, patent lack of jurisdiction, or other exceptional ground for interference under Article 226 was shown.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions challenging the reassessment order were maintainable despite the availability of an appellate remedy under the Karnataka VAT Act, and whether the alleged breach of natural justice or lack of jurisdiction justified interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The impugned reassessment order was held to be an appealable order under Section 62 of the Karnataka VAT Act, 2003, and the objections raised by the petitioner, including alleged violation of natural justice and grievance regarding computation of taxable turnover, were found to be matters that could be effectively urged before the appellate authority. The restriction in Section 62(6-A) against remand did not create any conflict with the appellate remedy or justify bypassing it. The Court found that the petitioner had been issued notice and had filed objections, and therefore the complaint of natural justice violation was not of such magnitude as to render the order a nullity. No patent lack of jurisdiction or other exceptional circumstance warranting writ interference was shown.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable in view of the efficacious alternate statutory remedy, and interference under Article 226 was declined.

---