Non-speaking tax order can be quashed in writ jurisdiction despite alternate appeal where objections are ignored.

Availability of a statutory appeal does not bar writ jurisdiction where the impugned order is non-speaking and fails to deal with the objections raised in reply to the show cause notice. The authority had passed the order without considering the petitioner's detailed submissions, making the order arbitrary and affecting the root of the matter. The writ petition was therefore maintainable, and the order was liable to be quashed. The order was set aside, with liberty to the authority to pass a fresh reasoned order after giving the petitioner due opportunity in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable and the impugned order was liable to be quashed on the ground that it was a non-speaking order, notwithstanding the availability of a statutory appeal under Section 73(1) of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

Analysis: The petitioner had replied in detail to the show cause notice, but the authority passed the impugned order without considering the points raised in the reply. The existence of an appellate remedy did not prevent interference because the challenged order was found to be non-speaking. A non-speaking order was treated as arbitrary and affecting the root of the matter, and therefore the writ petition was entertained.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and the impugned order was liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The order passed by the authority was set aside, and the authority was left free to pass a fresh reasoned order after giving the petitioner due opportunity in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Availability of an alternative statutory remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction where the impugned order is non-speaking and arbitrary for failure to deal with the objections raised by the affected party.

---