Alternative statutory remedy bars writ review where limitation plea, as a mixed question, was not raised before tax authorities.

Where an effective statutory appeal is available under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily not exercised unless a recognised exception applies; on these facts, no exception was shown, so the writ challenge to the assessment was not entertained. A limitation objection being a mixed question of law and fact should have been raised before the assessing and appellate authorities first, rather than for the first time in writ proceedings. The petitioner's failure to do so reflected lack of diligence, and the Court declined to examine the merits of the writ petition. The petitioner was left free to urge the limitation plea before the statutory tribunal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the effective statutory appeal under Section 33 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, and whether the petitioner could be permitted to raise the plea of limitation for the first time in writ proceedings.

Analysis: The writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and is ordinarily not exercised where the statute provides an efficacious alternative remedy. The recognised exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy did not apply on the facts, and the impugned assessment was capable of being examined by the appellate tribunal constituted under the Act. The petitioner had also failed to raise the limitation plea before the assessing authority and in both appellate rounds. Since limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, it ought to have been raised before the statutory authorities so that a finding could be recorded. The petitioner's conduct showed lack of diligence, and the Court declined to entertain the writ petition on merits.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed, leaving the petitioner free to urge the limitation plea before the statutory tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory remedy is available, writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be invoked unless a recognised exception is shown, and a plea involving mixed questions of law and fact should ordinarily be raised before the statutory fora in the first instance.

---