Alternative statutory remedy bars writ interference in revenue disputes unless jurisdictional error or natural justice violation is shown.

In revenue matters, writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be exercised where an effective statutory appellate remedy is available, as the rule against bypassing that remedy remains a self-imposed restraint. The recognised exceptions for lack of jurisdiction or total violation of natural justice were not established on the facts. Complaints concerning limitation, alleged suppression, appreciation of records, and adequacy of hearing were factual issues that could be pursued before the appellate authority. The writ court's refusal to interfere was therefore sustained, and the writ appeal was held not maintainable for attempting to circumvent the statutory remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ appeal could be entertained against the order of the writ court, in view of the availability of an effective statutory appellate remedy, when the appellant alleged lack of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, non-speaking order, and wrongful invocation of the extended period of limitation under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis: The Court reiterated that in revenue matters, the rule against entertaining a writ petition where an efficacious alternative remedy exists is a well-settled rule of self-imposed restraint. The recognized exceptions, such as absence of jurisdiction or total violation of natural justice, were not made out on the facts. The objections regarding limitation, alleged suppression, appreciation of records, and adequacy of hearing were factual matters that could be urged before the statutory appellate authority. The Court therefore found no reason to interfere with the writ court's refusal to exercise writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ appeal was not maintainable for bypassing the statutory remedy, and the order of the writ court was sustained.

---