Alternate remedy under VAT law bars writ relief where personal hearing and appellate review were available.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily not exercised where an efficacious statutory appeal exists under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, and the alternate-remedy rule applies with greater rigour in fiscal matters. The recognised exceptions, including breach of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, violation of fundamental rights, or challenge to vires, were not made out. A personal hearing notice had been issued, the assessee responded, and books of account were produced, so reasonable opportunity was found to have been given. Any dispute over appreciation of accounts or factual findings was held to lie in appeal, and the writ petition was therefore not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory appeal remedy under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, and whether any exception to the alternate remedy rule was made out on the ground of absence of proper opportunity or violation of natural justice.

Analysis: The availability of an effective appellate remedy under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 was undisputed. The Court applied the settled rule that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is ordinarily not exercised when an efficacious statutory remedy exists, with greater rigour in fiscal matters. The recognised exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy, including breach of fundamental rights, violation of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or challenge to vires, were found inapplicable. On the facts, a notice for personal hearing had been issued, the petitioner responded, and the petitioner also appeared and produced books of accounts. The Court therefore held that reasonable opportunity had been afforded, and any grievance regarding appreciation of accounts or factual findings was a matter for appellate review.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appeal remedy.

---