Statutory appellate remedy bars writ relief in a tax refund and input tax credit dispute when the Act provides an effective appeal.

Where an effective statutory appellate remedy exists in a fiscal dispute over rejection of refund and carry forward of input tax credit, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily not to be invoked. The court applied the settled principle that an aggrieved party must first exhaust the remedy provided by statute, particularly when the Act itself provides an appellate route against the rejection order. On that basis, the writ appeal was held not maintainable and dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ appeal was maintainable in view of the alternative statutory appellate remedy against the order rejecting refund and carry forward of input tax credit.

Analysis: The challenge arose from rejection of the claim for refund or carry forward of input tax credit in a tax assessment dispute. The impugned writ petition had been declined on the ground that the petitioner could pursue the statutory appeal. The Court noted that the petitioner had an efficacious remedy under the Act, including the appellate route against the rejection order, and that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is ordinarily not to be invoked when such a remedy exists, especially in fiscal matters. Reliance was also placed on the principle that statutory remedies must be exhausted before seeking writ relief.

Conclusion: The writ appeal was not maintainable in the face of the available statutory remedy and was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an effective statutory appellate remedy is available in a fiscal dispute, writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be exercised and the aggrieved party must first exhaust the remedy provided by the statute.

---