Jurisdictional precondition for reassessment under VAT law allowed writ relief despite the availability of an appellate remedy.

Availability of an appellate remedy did not bar writ relief under Article 226 where the challenge raised lack of jurisdiction, since alternative remedies are not an absolute bar in such cases. Reassessment under Section 22(1) of the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 could be initiated only after a prior assessment or reassessment order under Section 21(1), because that prior order is a jurisdictional fact and condition precedent. In the absence of such a pre-existing assessment order, the reassessment notice and resulting orders were without authority of law and unsustainable. The petitions therefore succeeded and the impugned reassessment orders were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the availability of an appellate remedy barred the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; (ii) Whether reassessment under Section 22(1) of the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 could be initiated without a prior assessment order under Section 21(1) of that Act.

Issue (i): Whether the availability of an appellate remedy barred the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The existence of an alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction. The recognised exceptions include lack of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, and challenge to the vires of the enactment. Where the impugned action is alleged to be wholly without jurisdiction, the High Court may still entertain the petition.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable despite the alternate appellate remedy.

Issue (ii): Whether reassessment under Section 22(1) of the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 could be initiated without a prior assessment order under Section 21(1) of that Act.

Analysis: Section 22(1) contemplates reassessment only where an assessment or reassessment has already been made. The pre-existing assessment order is therefore a jurisdictional fact and a condition precedent for exercise of reassessment power. In the absence of such an order, the reassessment notice and the resulting orders are without authority of law and beyond jurisdiction.

Conclusion: Reassessment could not be initiated without a prior assessment order, and the impugned reassessment orders were unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The petitions succeeded on the ground of lack of jurisdiction in the reassessment proceedings, and the impugned orders were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment power can be exercised only after a valid prior assessment order exists, and absence of that jurisdictional fact renders the reassessment without authority of law; the existence of an appellate remedy does not bar writ relief where jurisdiction is lacking.

---