Statutory appellate remedy prevails over writ jurisdiction when KVAT orders are challenged, with tribunal to decide independently.

Writ petitions challenging orders passed under Section 39(2) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 were not entertained because an efficacious statutory appellate remedy was available. The Court accepted that the proper forum was the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and directed the petitioners to pursue that remedy instead of invoking writ jurisdiction. It further required the Tribunal to decide the appeals independently and expeditiously, without being influenced by earlier observations made in similar matters. The result was relegation to the statutory appellate process, with no consideration of the merits in writ proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions should be entertained when an efficacious statutory appellate remedy was available under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, and whether the petitioners should be relegated to the appellate forum.

Analysis: The impugned orders were passed under Section 39(2) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, and the controversy was treated as covered by earlier orders of the Court in similar matters. The Court accepted the submission that the matters ought to be agitated before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The appellate remedy was treated as the proper forum, and it was also directed that the Tribunal should decide the appeals independently and expeditiously, without being influenced by prior observations.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not entertained on merits and the petitioners were relegated to the statutory appellate remedy.

---