Alternative remedy does not always bar writ relief; revisional tax assessment remanded for fresh hearing and reconsideration.

Alternative statutory remedy under the Telangana Value Added Tax Act did not bar writ jurisdiction in the facts, because Article 226 remains available despite an appellate remedy and the delay in approaching the court was not treated as fatal. The Court also found that the assessee had not earlier received a meaningful opportunity to place its case before the revisional authority, particularly on the absence of a July 2010 entry and the revised June 2010 return. The revisional assessment order was therefore set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration after notice, objections and personal hearing.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was liable to be rejected on the ground of availability of an alternative appellate remedy under the Telangana Value Added Tax Act, 2005; (ii) Whether the petitioner was entitled to interference with the revisional assessment order and a fresh opportunity of hearing.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was liable to be rejected on the ground of availability of an alternative appellate remedy under the Telangana Value Added Tax Act, 2005.

Analysis: The existence of an alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar to the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, though the scope of judicial review is circumscribed. The Court noted the explanation offered for the delay in approaching the writ court and did not treat delay and laches as fatal in the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not rejected on the ground of alternative remedy.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to interference with the revisional assessment order and a fresh opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: The Court found that the material placed on record showed no entry for July 2010 and that the revised return for June 2010 also required consideration. As the petitioner had not effectively participated in the enquiry earlier, the Court held that the matter should be reconsidered after giving an opportunity to file objections and to be personally heard, so that the revisional authority could take a holistic view of the assessment controversy.

Conclusion: The revisional order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner succeeded in obtaining interference with the impugned revisional assessment order, and the matter was sent back to the revisional authority for fresh adjudication after notice, objections, and personal hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: The existence of an alternative statutory remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction in every case, and where a party has not been afforded a meaningful opportunity to place material before the authority, the assessment order may be set aside and remitted for fresh decision after hearing.

---