Statutory reference remedy under Section 35G displaced writ jurisdiction, making the petition not maintainable.

Where the excise law, as amended, provides a specific procedure under Section 35G for seeking reference to the High Court on a question of law, recourse to writ jurisdiction is displaced in that context. The petitioner had already used the statutory hierarchy and then bypassed the reference mechanism under sub-section (3) of Section 35G by filing a writ petition. The availability of the express statutory remedy made the writ petition not maintainable, and it was rightly rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable when the statute provided a specific remedy for seeking reference to the High Court under Section 35G, and whether the petition was liable to be rejected on that ground.

Analysis: The petitioner had already pursued the statutory hierarchy and thereafter invoked the revisional/reference mechanism under the excise law. After amendment, Section 35G provided a specific procedure for seeking reference to the High Court on a question of law. Instead of availing that remedy under sub-section (3) of Section 35G, the petitioner filed a writ petition. The availability of an express statutory remedy for reference displaced recourse to writ jurisdiction in the circumstances of the case.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was rightly rejected.

---