Alternate Remedy Doctrine bars writ challenge to compounding fee levy where factual issues remain for revision

The writ challenge to a compounding fee levy was declined because the statute provided an efficacious revisional remedy, and the dispute depended on factual adjudication by the prescribed fact-finding forum. With tax already paid and no demonstrated breach of natural justice, want of jurisdiction, or patent statutory violation, the HC held that extraordinary writ jurisdiction was inappropriate. The petitioner was relegated to the statutory revision remedy, and the impugned order was not examined on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the levy of compounding fee was maintainable in view of the statutory revisional remedy, and whether the matter should be relegated to the revisional authority.

Analysis: The tax component had already been paid and the surviving grievance was only against the compounding fee levied under the Act. Liability to compounding fee depended upon the factual matrix, and the revisional authority was the prescribed final fact-finding forum under the statute. In the absence of a demonstrated violation of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or patent statutory infraction, the extraordinary writ jurisdiction was held to be inappropriate when an efficacious alternate remedy under the Act was available.

Conclusion: The challenge to the impugned order was not entertained on merits, and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory revision remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: Writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be exercised where the statute provides an efficacious alternate remedy, particularly when the dispute turns on factual adjudication and no exceptional ground such as want of jurisdiction or breach of natural justice is made out.

---