Alternative remedy doctrine bars writ jurisdiction unless the court gives reasons for bypassing an effective statutory appeal.

Where a statutory appeal provides an alternative and efficacious remedy, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be exercised unless the court records a reasoned basis for doing so despite that remedy. The writ court in this context was found to have noticed the alternate-remedy objection but proceeded to decide the matter on merits without first addressing maintainability, making the order erroneous. The available appeal mechanism was treated as an effective remedy against the assessment and rectification orders, and the writ petition was held not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition could be entertained despite the availability of an alternative and efficacious statutory appeal under Section 62 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

Analysis: The appellate court held that when a statutory appeal is available, the writ court must first address the preliminary objection based on alternate remedy and indicate why writ jurisdiction is being exercised notwithstanding that remedy. Since the writ court had noticed the objection but proceeded to decide the matter on merits without answering maintainability, the order was held to be erroneous. The court further noted that the appeal mechanism under Section 62 provided an effective remedy against the assessment and rectification orders.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in view of the available alternative remedy, and the challenge to the impugned orders failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory appeal provides an alternative and efficacious remedy, the writ court should ordinarily not entertain the petition unless it first records a reasoned basis for invoking writ jurisdiction despite that remedy.

---