Alternative statutory remedy bars writ intervention where an appeal can examine grievances under the Maharashtra VAT framework.

A writ petition challenging an assessment order under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 was not entertained because an efficacious statutory appeal was available under Section 26. The HC noted that the impugned order had been passed under Section 23 and that the appellate authority was competent to examine the petitioner's grievances and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. On that basis, the court declined writ intervention and directed the petitioner to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the order passed under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 was maintainable in view of the efficacious statutory appeal remedy under Section 26.

Analysis: The impugned order was passed under Section 23 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002. An appellate remedy was available under Section 26, and the appellate authority could examine the petitioner's grievances and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. On that basis, the writ petition was not entertained.

Conclusion: The petition was not entertained because the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal.

---