Statutory appeal remedy prevails where input tax credit law is settled, with merits decided without pre-deposit.

Writ petitions challenging reassessment orders on denial of input tax credit under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act were not entertained because statutory appeals were already pending and the appellate remedy was efficacious. The High Court noted that a prior binding decision had settled the input tax credit issue in favour of assessees, so the appellate authority could apply that precedent while deciding the appeals. The petitions were therefore disposed of by directing the assessee to pursue the pending appeals, and the appellate authority was required to hear and decide them on merits without insisting on pre-deposit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions should be entertained despite the availability of pending statutory appeals, and whether the appellate authority could be directed to decide the appeals on merits without insisting on pre-deposit.

Analysis: The writ petitions challenged reassessment orders concerning denial of input tax credit under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The Court noted that a recent judgment of the same Court had already settled the input tax credit issue in favour of assessees, and that the petitioner had already availed the regular appellate remedy under Section 62 of the Act. Since the appellate forum could apply the binding law laid down by the Court, the writ court declined to examine the merits in the first instance and relegated the petitioner to the pending appeals. At the same time, the Court directed the appellate authority to hear and decide the appeals on merits in accordance with the settled law and to do so without insisting on pre-deposit.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not entertained on merits and were disposed of by directing the petitioner to pursue the pending statutory appeals, which the appellate authority was required to decide expeditiously and without pre-deposit.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory appeal is already pending and the governing legal issue stands settled by binding precedent, the writ court may decline merits review and require the appellate authority to decide the appeal in accordance with that precedent without insisting on pre-deposit.

---