Statutory appellate remedy bars writ interference where an effective tribunal appeal was available and unused.

Writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be used to bypass an efficacious statutory appeal remedy in revenue matters. The Madras HC noted that the impugned order-in-original provided an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 129-A of the Finance Act, 1994, with condonation of delay available on sufficient cause. As the petitioner did not pursue that remedy and offered no acceptable reason for approaching the writ court directly, the Court declined to exercise Article 226 jurisdiction. The writ petition was therefore held not maintainable and the impugned order was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the order-in-original was maintainable in view of the statutory appeal remedy under Section 129-A of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis: The order under challenge specifically provided an appeal remedy before the Appellate Tribunal, with power to condone delay on sufficient cause being shown. The petitioner did not avail that statutory remedy and approached the writ court instead. In the absence of any acceptable explanation for bypassing the alternative remedy, the Court declined to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The Court refused to interfere on merits and left the impugned order undisturbed because the petitioner had an efficacious statutory appellate remedy which was not pursued.

Ratio Decidendi: Writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked to bypass an efficacious statutory appellate remedy, especially in revenue matters, unless extraordinary grounds justify such interference.

---