Alternative statutory remedy bars writ relief where threshold turnover findings are factual and limitation runs from breach of the taxable limit.

Where an adequate statutory reference remedy existed under the excise law, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was ordinarily not invoked to bypass it, especially when the petitioners could raise want of jurisdiction before the statutory forum. The challenge to exemption and concessional duty also failed because the Tribunal's factual finding that clearances exceeded the prescribed threshold could not be reopened in writ proceedings. On limitation, the notice was treated as timely because time ran from the date the clearance crossed the taxable limit, and the notice issued within two months was within the prescribed period.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory alternative remedy of reference to the High Court under the excise law; (ii) Whether the petitioners were entitled to the exemption and concessional rate of duty despite the finding that clearances exceeded the prescribed limit, and whether the demand notice was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory alternative remedy of reference to the High Court under the excise law.

Analysis: The statutory scheme provided an adequate remedy by way of reference on questions of law to the High Court. The petitioners could also raise the plea of want of jurisdiction in that statutory forum. In such circumstances, resort to Article 226 was not justified when the special remedy had not been availed of.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and the objection based on alternative remedy succeeded.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioners were entitled to the exemption and concessional rate of duty despite the finding that clearances exceeded the prescribed limit, and whether the demand notice was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The Tribunal's finding that the clearances exceeded Rs. 15 lakhs on 18 September 1981 was accepted. The challenge attempted to reopen a factual finding in writ jurisdiction, which was impermissible. On limitation, the relevant time began when the clearance crossed the threshold, and the notice issued within two months was within the prescribed period.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to the concession, and the notice was not barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: No ground was made out for interference under Article 226, and the challenge to the excise demand failed in full.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statutory remedy is available and adequate, writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be invoked to bypass it, and a factual finding on threshold turnover or clearance cannot be reopened in writ proceedings; limitation runs from the date the taxable threshold is crossed.

---