Alternative statutory remedy bars writ interference where tax detention and penalty disputes turn on contested facts.

Where disputed questions of fact arise in a tax challenge, and the statute provides an effective appellate remedy, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should ordinarily not be invoked. The controversy over alleged inter-State sale, cancellation of the purchase order, and liability to tax and penalty required factual adjudication, which the appellate authority under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 could examine. No exceptional circumstance was shown to bypass that remedy, so interference with the writ court's order was not warranted and the writ appeal was held not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ appeal was maintainable in view of the statutory appellate remedy under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, when the challenge involved disputed questions concerning detention of goods and levy of tax and penalty.

Analysis: The dispute raised by the appellant turned on factual issues, including the alleged inter-State sale, cancellation of the purchase order, and liability to tax and penalty. The statutory scheme under Section 54 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 provided an appellate remedy, and the grounds urged could be examined by the appellate authority. In tax matters, where an effective alternative remedy exists, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is ordinarily not to be invoked, especially when disputed facts require factual adjudication. No exceptional circumstance was made out to bypass the statutory remedy.

Conclusion: The writ appeal was not maintainable and interference with the writ court's order was unwarranted.

---