Alternative statutory remedy bars writ relief where second appeal under VAT law remains unexhausted, subject to limitation protection.

Where an efficacious statutory appeal is available, writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be invoked until that remedy is exhausted. The Karnataka High Court noted that the assessee's first appellate order was adverse and that the second appeal under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, had not been filed before the Tribunal. It therefore relegated the petitioner to the alternate statutory remedy, while directing that any appeal filed within fifteen days be considered on merits without objection on limitation. Further steps were left open if the Department produced proof of stay of the earlier judgment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions should be entertained when an effective statutory appeal remedy was available and the petitioner had not availed the second appeal under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

Analysis: The order records that the first appellate order had gone against the assessee and that the statutory second appeal before the Tribunal under Section 63 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, had not yet been filed. In these circumstances, the Court held that the petitioner should be relegated to the alternative remedy before the Tribunal. The Court also directed that any appeal filed within fifteen days should be considered on merits without objection as to limitation, and noted that further steps could be taken if the Department produced proof of stay of the earlier judgment.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not entertained on merits and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appellate remedy before the Tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory appeal is available and has not been exhausted, writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be invoked, and the litigant may be relegated to the alternate remedy.

---