Alternative remedy doctrine bars writ relief where a statutory appeal is available against a reassessment order.

Where a reassessment order is appealable under the Madhya Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2002, the High Court will ordinarily decline to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 if an efficacious statutory appellate remedy exists. The reassessment order was not shown to be without jurisdiction and had been passed after hearing the assessee, so no exceptional circumstance justified bypassing the appeal mechanism. The challenge was therefore left to be pursued before the appellate authority, and writ relief was refused in view of the rule of alternative remedy.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable when an efficacious statutory appeal was available against the reassessment order under the Madhya Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2002.

Analysis: The impugned order was appealable under Section 46(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2002. The reassessment order was not shown to be without jurisdiction, and it had been passed after affording an opportunity of hearing. The writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is subject to the rule of alternative remedy, which is a rule of self-imposed restraint. Where the statute provides a complete appellate mechanism, the writ court ordinarily should not bypass that mechanism unless exceptional circumstances are made out. No such exceptional case was established, and the grounds raised in the writ petition could be pursued before the appellate authority.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in view of the available statutory appeal and was rightly declined.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the reassessment order was left to be pursued before the appellate forum, and no interference was called for in writ jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory appeal is available and no exceptional ground is shown, the High Court should normally refuse to entertain a writ petition under Article 226.

---