Alternative appellate remedy bars writ relief where natural justice objections can be raised before the appellate authority.

Writ jurisdiction was not invoked because section 26 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 provided an efficacious appellate remedy against the assessment order. The Court also held that the alleged breach of natural justice, including non-supply of a relied-upon report, could be examined by the appellate authority. In these circumstances, the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 was not considered appropriate, and writ relief was declined in favour of the statutory appeal process.

---

---

Issues: Whether writ jurisdiction should be exercised despite the availability of an efficacious alternative appellate remedy, including on the ground of alleged breach of natural justice.

Analysis: The petition challenged an assessment order under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002. The Court held that section 26 of the Act provided an efficacious alternative remedy by way of appeal. It further noted that the grievance of breach of natural justice, including the complaint that a relied-upon report had not been supplied, was a matter that could also be examined by the appellate authority. In these circumstances, the Court found no reason to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226.

Conclusion: Writ relief was declined and the petition was not entertained in view of the alternative appellate remedy.

---