Alternative statutory remedy prevails once constitutional challenge is withdrawn; writ should not be decided on merits.

Once the constitutional challenge to Section 5A of the Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1968 was withdrawn, the basis for entertaining the writ petition despite an available statutory appeal disappeared. The Supreme Court held that the High Court should not have proceeded to decide the dispute on merits after the petitioner elected to pursue the appellate remedy under Section 30. It also noted that, if the appeal was filed within the stipulated time, it should not be rejected on limitation and must be decided in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court ought to have decided the writ petition on merits after the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 5A of the Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1968 was given up and an alternative statutory remedy was available.

Analysis: The writ petition had been entertained earlier because the constitutional validity of Section 5A was in issue. Once that challenge was abandoned, the basis for bypassing the statutory appellate remedy disappeared. In such a situation, the High Court ought not to have proceeded to adjudicate the dispute on merits. The Court also noted the respondent's intention to avail the statutory appeal under Section 30 of the Act and directed that, if filed within the stipulated time, the appeal should not be rejected on limitation and should be decided in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The High Court's judgment could not be sustained insofar as it decided the matter on merits after the constitutional challenge was withdrawn; the appeal was therefore allowed in part.

---