Alternate remedy rule bars writ challenge to revised tax assessment where statutory appeal remains effective.

In fiscal matters, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked where an effective statutory appeal remedy exists, and the petitioner must first exhaust that remedy. The revised assessment order under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 was treated as passed under Section 27(1)(a) with penalty under Section 27(3)(c); the petitioner had received notice and filed objections, so reasonable opportunity was afforded. As no material showed that the appeal under Section 51 was inefficacious or that any exception to the alternate remedy rule applied, the writ petition was held not maintainable and dismissed, with merits left open for consideration in appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the revised assessment order was maintainable in view of the alternative statutory appeal remedy under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.

Analysis: The impugned order was treated as a revised assessment under Section 27(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, with penalty under Section 27(3)(c). The petitioner had received the revisional notice and filed objections, so the requirement of reasonable opportunity before passing the order was satisfied. The Court found no showing that the statutory appeal remedy under Section 51 was inefficacious or that any exception to the alternate remedy rule applied. In fiscal matters, the rule of alternate remedy applies with greater rigour, and writ jurisdiction is not to be invoked as a substitute for the statutory appellate mechanism.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed, leaving the petitioner free to pursue the statutory appeal.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the assessment was declined on the ground that the petitioner had an efficacious statutory appellate remedy, and questions on merits were left open.

Ratio Decidendi: In fiscal matters, where an effective statutory appeal remedy exists and natural justice has not been violated, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be exercised and the litigant must first exhaust the statutory remedy.

---