Alternative statutory remedy bars writ review of penalty demand; petitioner must pursue revision under the Puducherry VAT framework.

A writ petition challenging a penalty demand for delayed tax payment was not entertained because an effective statutory revision remedy was available under the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007. The demand was linked to Section 27(3) of the erstwhile Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act, 1967 read with Section 81 of the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007, but the Court declined to examine the merits in writ jurisdiction. The petitioner was relegated to the revision remedy under Section 45, with the limitation objection left open for the revisional authority if the filing was within time.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the demand for penalty was liable to be entertained in view of the petitioner's effective alternative statutory remedy under the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007.

Analysis: The demand arose from delayed payment of tax and was sought to be sustained under Section 27(3) of the erstwhile Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act, 1967 read with Section 81 of the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007. The Court declined to examine the merits of the demand in writ jurisdiction and noted that the statute provided a revision remedy under Section 45 of the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007. The Court therefore left the petitioner to pursue that remedy, with the limitation objection kept open to be considered by the revisional authority if filed within the stipulated time.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained on the ground of availability of an effective alternative remedy, and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory revision remedy.

---