Statutory appellate remedy bars writ interference where assessment orders consider objections and factual conclusions require appellate review.

Where assessment orders show that objections on purchases from cancelled dealers and mismatch in returns were examined on the available materials, writ jurisdiction should not be used to reappreciate the factual conclusions. The court found that the assessments were passed after considering the reply and documents produced, not by summary rejection of the assessee's case. As an efficacious statutory appeal was available under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, and no exceptional ground justified bypassing it, interference under Article 226 was unwarranted. The assessee was therefore relegated to the appellate remedy, and the writ challenge to the assessments was not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ court was justified in declining interference with the assessment orders and relegating the assessee to the statutory appellate remedy under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.

Analysis: The assessment orders showed that the objections regarding purchases from cancelled dealers and mismatch in returns were considered on the available materials. The assessment was not a summary rejection of the assessee's case, but an order passed after examining the reply and the documents produced. In such circumstances, the correctness of the factual conclusions had to be tested before the appellate authority. The existence of an efficacious statutory appeal, coupled with the absence of any exceptional ground to bypass that remedy, made interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unwarranted.

Conclusion: The writ court was right in relegating the assessee to the statutory appeal, and the challenge to the assessments was not maintainable in writ jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessment order reflects consideration of the assessee's objections and an effective statutory appeal is available, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked to reappreciate the factual conclusions.

---