Alternate statutory remedy controls writ jurisdiction where refund interest claims require factual scrutiny and revision is available.

Writ jurisdiction was held inappropriate where the refund claim had already been accepted and only the interest component remained for determination. Because the interest dispute required factual scrutiny of supporting records, it was not suitable for adjudication on affidavits in writ proceedings. In fiscal matters, the alternate remedy rule applies with greater rigour, and the petitioner was required to pursue the statutory revisional remedy under Section 54 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The Court also noted that the petitioner could seek condonation of delay and exclusion of time before the revisional authority under principles akin to Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions were maintainable in view of the statutory revisional remedy under Section 54 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, and whether the petitioner could bypass that remedy to seek adjudication on the interest component of refund.

Analysis: The refund claim itself had already been accepted, and what survived for consideration was only the claim for interest. The interest dispute depended on factual examination and scrutiny of supporting records, which was not suitable for adjudication in writ proceedings based only on affidavits. In fiscal matters, the rule of alternate remedy operates with greater rigour, and writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not invoked when an effective statutory remedy is available. The impugned orders gave rise to a fresh cause of action after remand, and the petitioner was therefore required to pursue revision under Section 54 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The Court also noted that the petitioner could seek condonation of delay and exclusion of time under the principles of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, before the revisional authority.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory revisional remedy under Section 54 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.

Ratio Decidendi: In fiscal disputes, where an effective statutory revisional remedy exists and adjudication requires factual examination, writ jurisdiction should not be invoked in preference to the statutory remedy.

---