Alternate-remedy rule bars writ challenge to VAT revisional orders where statutory appeal remains available and opportunity was provided.

Writ jurisdiction was held inappropriate in a fiscal dispute where an efficacious statutory appeal under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 was available. The Court found no recognised exception to the alternate-remedy rule, noted that the dealer had been given repeated notices and opportunities under Section 27, and held that complaints about the correctness of the revisional orders and the treatment of objections were matters for the appellate authority. Earlier challenges to the pre-revision notices could not be reopened because they had already been decided, and judicial discipline barred reconsideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions challenging revisional orders under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 were maintainable in view of the statutory appeal under Section 51, and whether the impugned orders suffered from denial of adequate opportunity or non-consideration of objections.

Analysis: The impugned orders were passed under Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 after repeated notices and opportunities in the course of a third round of litigation. The Court held that the challenge to the earlier pre-revision notices could not be reopened, since that issue had already been decided by earlier orders and principles of judicial discipline barred reconsideration. On the question of opportunity, the record showed that the dealer had been asked to produce books of accounts and other records, was granted time, and still did not furnish the material as required. The Court further held that any factual grievance about the correctness of the revisional orders, including the treatment of the objections dated 27.08.2021, was a matter for the statutory appellate authority under Section 51, especially because fiscal matters attract the alternate-remedy rule with greater rigour and no exception to that rule was made out.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable and the challenge to the revisional orders failed. The Court declined to interfere and relegated the petitioner to the statutory appellate remedy.

Final Conclusion: The impugned revisional orders were left undisturbed, and the petitioner's remedy, if any, lay before the appellate authority under the statute.

Ratio Decidendi: In fiscal matters, writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be exercised where an efficacious statutory appeal is available, unless a recognised exception to the alternate-remedy rule is shown; alleged factual disputes and adequacy of opportunity are for the appellate forum to examine.

---