Alternate remedy in fiscal disputes prevails where no natural justice breach or jurisdictional error is shown.

In fiscal disputes under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act 2006, writ interference is ordinarily declined where the assessment was made after notices, replies and personal hearings, and no breach of natural justice or jurisdictional defect is shown. The court noted that the revisional order reflected partial acceptance of the dealer's objections, so the proper course was to pursue the statutory appeal under Section 51, subject to limitation and pre-deposit requirements. The writ petition was not entertained and the petitioner was relegated to the appellate remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the revised assessment could be entertained when no violation of natural justice or lack of jurisdiction was shown and an efficacious statutory appeal was available.

Analysis: The impugned assessment was passed under the revisional power after issuance of notices, replies, and personal hearings, and the order itself showed partial acceptance of the dealer's objections. On those facts, no breach of natural justice was made out and the assessing authority's jurisdiction under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act 2006 was not in dispute. The matter was a fiscal dispute, and the rule of alternate remedy applied with greater rigour. In such circumstances, the proper course was to pursue the statutory appeal under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act 2006, subject to limitation and pre-deposit requirements.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained and was dismissed; the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appellate remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: In fiscal matters, where no jurisdictional error or breach of natural justice is established, the writ court should ordinarily decline interference and insist on exhaustion of the statutory appellate remedy.

---