Effective statutory revision remedy bars writ appellate interference where no jurisdictional error or natural justice breach is shown.

Where an effective statutory revision remedy is available under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, writ appellate interference is not warranted if the impugned order discloses no jurisdictional error, violation of natural justice, or breach of statutory provisions. The challenge to orders issued under Section 56(1) was therefore declined in intra-court appeal, with the court noting that the classification dispute and the propriety of the Section 56(1) power required merits-based scrutiny better suited to the revisional authority. The appellant was left to pursue revision and seek consequential interim reliefs.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned orders passed under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 warranted interference in intra-court appeal in view of the availability of an effective statutory revision remedy.

Analysis: The challenge was to orders passed in exercise of power under Section 56(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The availability of revision under Section 59 of that Act before the Commissioner was treated as an effective statutory remedy. The impugned orders were found not to suffer from jurisdictional error, violation of natural justice, or contravention of statutory provisions. The correctness of the classification issue and the sustainability of the exercise of power under Section 56(1) were held to require an elaborate merits-based examination, which was considered appropriate for the revisional authority.

Conclusion: Interference in the writ appeal was declined, and the appellant was left to pursue the statutory revision remedy.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the orders was not entertained on merits in writ appellate jurisdiction, while the appellant was protected to the limited extent of being enabled to pursue revision and seek consequential interim reliefs.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an effective statutory revision remedy is available and the impugned order does not disclose jurisdictional error or violation of natural justice, writ appellate interference is not warranted.

---