Alternative statutory remedy bars writ jurisdiction where VAT reassessment is challenged after prolonged delay.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was held not to be the proper forum where the Tamil Nadu VAT Act, 2006 provided an efficacious statutory scheme of rectification under Section 84 and appeals under Sections 51 and 52. The Court reiterated that a petitioner must ordinarily exhaust such remedies before seeking writ relief, except in exceptional cases such as breach of natural justice or lack of jurisdiction. As the revised assessment orders were challenged after about two years, the petitions were also treated as barred by laches. The writ petitions were therefore dismissed for non-exhaustion of statutory remedies and delay.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions challenging the revised assessment orders were maintainable in view of the statutory appeal and rectification remedies under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, and whether the petitions were barred by delay and laches.

Analysis: The statutory scheme provided a rectification remedy under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and an appeal thereafter under Sections 51 and 52 of the same Act. The existence of these remedies required the petitioner to pursue the appellate forum before invoking writ jurisdiction. The Court also emphasized that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and ordinarily should not be exercised where an efficacious alternative remedy exists, except in exceptional circumstances such as violation of natural justice or lack of jurisdiction. As the impugned orders were challenged after about two years, the petitions were also affected by laches.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable and were dismissed for failure to exhaust the statutory remedy and for delay.

---