Alternative statutory remedy must be exhausted before writ interference, even for natural justice and jurisdictional objections.

Writ challenges to assessment orders under the Tamil Nadu VAT framework are ordinarily not maintainable without first using the statutory appeal hierarchy. The Act provides a complete appellate and revisional structure, and the appellate authority can examine legal and factual objections, including alleged violations of natural justice and jurisdictional error, and grant appropriate relief. Writ interference is therefore exceptional and is reserved for cases of gross injustice or a clear, uncorrectable violation that cannot be effectively addressed in the statutory forum. Even objections based on wrong application of the amended provision must first be raised before the appellate authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions challenging the assessment orders were maintainable without exhausting the statutory appellate remedy under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, despite allegations of violation of natural justice and jurisdictional error.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Sections 51, 58, 59 and 60 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 provides a complete hierarchy of appeal and revision. The appellate authority is empowered to examine assessment orders, consider legal and factual objections, and grant appropriate relief after hearing the parties. The availability of an appeal is the rule, while interference in writ jurisdiction without availing that remedy is an exception to be exercised only in exceptional circumstances such as gross injustice or a clear and substantiated violation that cannot be effectively corrected in the statutory forum. Even objections relating to alleged jurisdictional error or wrong application of the amended provision can be examined by the appellate authority.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable at this stage, and the petitioner was required to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.

Final Conclusion: The assessment challenges were left to be pursued before the appellate forum, and the High Court declined to entertain the writ petitions on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute provides an efficacious appellate mechanism, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked to bypass that remedy, and alleged natural justice or jurisdictional objections must first be raised before the statutory appellate authority unless exceptional grounds are made out.

---