Alternative statutory remedy bars writ review where VAT repeal and transitional tax issues can be examined by the appellate authority.

The HC held that the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 was not shown to have been repealed by the Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016, because section 19 continued existing laws until amendment, repeal by competent authority, or expiry of the transitional period. It further held that issues concerning GST saving clauses and the effect of section 6 of the General Clauses Act were better raised before the appellate authority. As an efficacious statutory appellate remedy was available under the taxing statute, the Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and left the challenge to be pursued before the appellate forum.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions challenging revisional orders under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 were maintainable in view of the statutory appellate remedy, and whether the repeal contention based on the Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016 displaced the operation of the VAT Act and the impugned orders.

Analysis: The Court found no basis in the Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016 for the submission that the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 stood repealed with effect from 16.09.2016. It held that section 19 of the Amendment Act continued existing laws in force until amended or repealed by a competent authority or until the expiry of one year from commencement, whichever was earlier. The Court further noted that the GST enactments and their saving clauses were relevant to the continued operation of the earlier VAT regime, and that the effect of such saving provisions, as well as the applicability of section 6 of the General Clauses Act, was a matter better raised before the appellate authority. In view of the efficacious alternative remedy provided under the taxing statute, the Court declined to examine the merits of the challenge under Article 226.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not entertained on merits and were dismissed for availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the impugned VAT revisional orders was left to be pursued before the appellate forum, and the writ court declined interference in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a complete statutory appellate remedy is available under a taxing enactment, writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be exercised to decide disputes that can be effectively examined by the appellate authority, especially on questions involving saving clauses and the continued operation of repealed or transitional tax laws.

---