Efficacious statutory appeal remedy limits writ jurisdiction where a speaking refund order can be challenged in appeal.

An efficacious statutory appellate remedy under the Jammu and Kashmir Value Added Tax Act, 2005 ordinarily bars recourse to writ jurisdiction. The refund rejection order was a speaking order containing reasons, and the dispute involved factual and legal questions that could be examined in appeal under Section 72. A plea of violation of natural justice did not, on the facts, justify bypassing the statutory appeal. The writ petition was therefore treated as not maintainable, with the party required to pursue the appellate remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the efficacious statutory appeal remedy under the Jammu and Kashmir Value Added Tax Act, 2005, despite the plea of violation of natural justice.

Analysis: The impugned refund rejection order contained reasons and was a speaking order. The dispute involved factual and legal issues arising from the assessment and refund claim, which could be effectively examined in appeal under Section 72 of the Act. The availability of an efficacious statutory remedy ordinarily bars invocation of extraordinary writ jurisdiction, and no exceptional circumstance was shown to justify departure from that rule. The plea based on natural justice did not, on the facts, warrant bypassing the appellate remedy.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and the petitioner was required to pursue the statutory appeal remedy under Section 72 of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory appellate remedy is available against a speaking order, the High Court should ordinarily decline to exercise writ jurisdiction unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated.

---