Alternate remedy rule bars writ review where TVAT taxability disputes turn on disputed facts and appeal is available.

In fiscal matters under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, a writ petition challenging a reassessment or revisional order under Section 27 was found not to be maintainable because an effective statutory appeal lay under Section 51. The dispute turned on fact-intensive questions about the nature and taxability of the commodity, so the recognised exceptions to the alternate remedy rule were not attracted. Judicial review under Article 226 was therefore declined, leaving the taxability issue to be examined by the appellate authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the reassessment order under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 should be entertained in writ jurisdiction notwithstanding the availability of a statutory appeal.

Analysis: The impugned order was a revisional or reassessment order under Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The Court found that an appeal lay under Section 51 of the Act and that the matter turned heavily on disputed facts regarding the nature and taxability of the commodity. Applying the settled principle that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not to be invoked when an effective statutory remedy exists, especially in fiscal matters, the Court held that the case did not fall within the recognised exceptions to the alternate remedy rule.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertainable and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appellate remedy.

Final Conclusion: Judicial review under Article 226 was declined in view of the efficacious alternative remedy, leaving the merits of taxability open for examination by the appellate authority.

Ratio Decidendi: In fiscal matters, where an effective statutory appeal is available and no recognised exception to the alternate remedy rule is made out, writ jurisdiction should not be exercised to decide fact-intensive disputes.

---