Alternate statutory remedy in fiscal assessments bars writ relief, while prior deposits may suffice for the appeal.

In a fiscal assessment challenge under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, the Madras HC reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked where an effective statutory appeal is available, especially in revenue matters. As the challenge to the revised assessment turned largely on facts and the petitioner had an efficacious appeal under Section 51, the Court declined to entertain the writ on merits and relegated the petitioner to the appellate remedy. It further directed the appellate authority not to insist on any fresh pre-deposit, noting that the petitioner had already deposited 50% in stages. The impugned order was kept in abeyance if the appeal was pursued within time.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the revised assessment order should be entertained despite availability of the statutory appeal under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, and whether further pre-deposit could be insisted upon in the event of such appeal.

Analysis: The dispute arose from a revised assessment under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The impugned assessment was assailed on the ground that it did not conform to the earlier appellate directions, but the challenge was found to turn largely on facts. The Court applied the settled rule that writ jurisdiction is subject to the doctrine of alternate remedy, particularly in revenue matters, and noted that the petitioner had an efficacious statutory appeal under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The Court also noted that the petitioner had already made the earlier 25% pre-deposit and had paid a further 25% pursuant to stay orders, taking the total deposit to 50%.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained on merits and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appeal. The appellate authority was directed to entertain the appeal without insisting on any fresh pre-deposit, and the impugned order was kept in abeyance pending disposal of the appeal if the remedy was pursued within the stipulated time.

Ratio Decidendi: In matters involving fiscal assessments, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked when an effective statutory appellate remedy exists, and prior statutory deposits can be treated as sufficient for the purpose of the subsequent appeal where the Court so directs.

---