Alternate statutory remedy bars writ interference in tax assessment disputes where no exceptional ground is shown.

Writ petitions challenging revised assessment orders under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, and the consequential Central Sales Tax order were held not maintainable because an efficacious statutory appeal was available under Section 51 before the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner. The High Court applied the settled rule that writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be exercised when an alternate remedy exists, with greater rigour in fiscal matters, and found no exceptional circumstance to justify interference. Objections relating to document production and personal hearing were held to be matters that could be raised in appeal, not grounds for writ intervention.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions challenging the revised assessment orders under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and the consequential order under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 were maintainable in view of the available statutory appeal remedy.

Analysis: The impugned orders arose out of a tax assessment dispute under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, with the second order being consequential. The Court noted that the petitioner had an effective statutory appeal under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 before the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner. Applying the settled rule that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not to be invoked when an efficacious alternate remedy exists, and that the rule operates with greater rigour in fiscal matters, the Court held that no exceptional circumstance was shown to justify interference. The Court also observed that the objections relating to document production and personal hearing did not warrant writ interference and could be raised in appeal.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not entertained and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appellate remedy; the challenge failed in favour of the Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: In tax matters, where an efficacious statutory appeal is available and no exceptional ground is shown, the High Court should ordinarily decline writ interference and direct the aggrieved party to exhaust the alternate remedy.

---