Writ jurisdiction and revisional limits: alternative remedy cannot bar a jurisdictional challenge, and settled issues cannot be reopened.

An alternative statutory appeal is not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction under Article 226, especially where the challenge is jurisdictional or concerns an action said to be without authority. The High Court should not reject such a petition mechanically for non-exhaustion of remedy. Under section 34 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003, suo motu revision is confined to orders prejudicial to the State and affected by illegality or impropriety; it cannot reopen an issue already finally settled by a binding appellate decision. The earlier Tribunal ruling on classification and tax rate was therefore treated as binding on the assessing and revisional authorities.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition solely on the ground that an alternative appellate remedy under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 had not been pursued. (ii) Whether the Revisional Authority had jurisdiction under section 34 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 to revise the assessment orders in the face of an earlier Tribunal decision on the same issue.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition solely on the ground that an alternative appellate remedy under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 had not been pursued.

Analysis: The availability of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The rule is one of discretion and policy, and a writ petition may be entertained where a jurisdictional challenge is raised or where the impugned action is said to be wholly without jurisdiction. A pure question of law, especially one going to the competence of the authority, is not to be rejected mechanically on the ground of non-exhaustion of the statutory appeal.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy was not justified.

Issue (ii): Whether the Revisional Authority had jurisdiction under section 34 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 to revise the assessment orders in the face of an earlier Tribunal decision on the same issue.

Analysis: Section 34 empowered suo motu revision only where an order was prejudicial to the interests of the State and suffered from illegality or impropriety, but the first proviso barred revision where the relevant issue had already been settled by an appellate authority. The Tribunal's earlier decision on the classification and tax rate had attained finality and was binding on the Assessing Authority and the Revisional Authority alike. In such circumstances, revising the assessment by treating the same issue as erroneous offended judicial discipline and exceeded the statutory limits on revisional power.

Conclusion: The Revisional Authority lacked jurisdiction to reopen the settled issue and the revisional orders were invalid.

Final Conclusion: The impugned revisional orders could not be sustained, the writ petition should not have been thrown out at the threshold, and the assessee succeeded in the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition raising a pure jurisdictional question cannot be mechanically rejected for non-availment of an alternative remedy, and a revisional authority cannot exercise suo motu power to reopen an issue already finally settled by a binding appellate decision.

---