Statutory appellate remedy bars writ intervention where no exceptional circumstance justifies bypassing the TNVAT appeal route.

Where an efficacious statutory appellate remedy exists under the TNVAT Act, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be used to bypass that procedure in revenue matters absent exceptional circumstances. The petitioner had an available appeal with a limited power of condonation of delay but chose not to pursue it and offered no acceptable explanation for skipping the statutory route. The writ challenge was therefore held not maintainable and was dismissed at the threshold, leaving the assessment merits undecided.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the statutory appellate remedy under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.

Analysis: The petitioner had an efficacious appellate remedy under the TNVAT Act, including a limited power of condonation of delay, but did not avail of it and instead invoked Article 226. In revenue matters, writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not exercised to bypass the statutory procedure unless exceptional grounds exist. No acceptable explanation was offered for skipping the appeal, and no extraordinary circumstance was shown to justify interference.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the assessment order was rejected at the threshold on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory remedy, leaving the merits of the dispute undecided.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory appellate remedy exists, writ jurisdiction should not be invoked to circumvent that remedy in the absence of exceptional circumstances.

---