Alternative statutory remedy bars writ challenge to VAT assessment absent a clear natural justice breach

Under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was treated as discretionary and ordinarily unavailable where the statute provides an efficacious appellate and revisional scheme. The article notes that assessment orders could be challenged through appeal, revision, and further appeal under the Act, so the High Court should generally decline to bypass that machinery. The recognised exceptions, including a clear breach of natural justice or action contrary to statute, were considered, but the materials did not show any exceptional ground. The challenge was therefore left to the statutory appellate forum and writ interference was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the assessment order under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 should be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India despite the availability of a statutory appeal under the Act.

Analysis: The Act provides a complete appellate and revisional framework for challenging assessment orders, including appeal under Section 73, revision under Section 75, and further appeal to the High Court under Section 78. The jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and ordinarily not exercised when an efficacious alternative remedy is available. The recognized exceptions to this rule, including violation of natural justice or action contrary to the statute, were examined, but the materials did not establish a case of total breach of natural justice or other exceptional circumstance warranting bypass of the statutory machinery.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in view of the alternative statutory remedy, and the petitioner was relegated to the appellate remedy under the Act.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the assessment order was left to be pursued before the statutory appellate forum, and the High Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute creates a complete mechanism for redressal, the High Court should ordinarily decline writ intervention and require exhaustion of the efficacious statutory remedy unless exceptional circumstances such as a clear violation of natural justice are shown.

---