Alternative statutory remedy bars writ relief where refund dispute can be pursued before the appellate tribunal

A writ petition challenging rejection of refund was not entertained because an effective statutory appeal lay before the appellate tribunal and had not been exhausted. Applying the settled principle that the High Court ordinarily declines writ relief when an adequate alternative remedy is available, the Court required the refund dispute to be pursued before the statutory appellate forum. The merits of the refund claim were therefore left to the tribunal, and writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was not invoked as a substitute for the prescribed appeal mechanism.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the rejection of refund was maintainable in view of the availability of an alternative statutory remedy before the appellate tribunal.

Analysis: The petition invoked writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to challenge the orders rejecting refund. The Court noted that an appeal lay to the appellate tribunal under the statutory scheme and that the petitioner had not exhausted that remedy. Applying the settled principle that the High Court ordinarily declines to entertain a writ petition when an effective alternative remedy is available, the Court held that the merits of the refund dispute should be agitated before the tribunal.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained and was dismissed on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an effective statutory appeal lies, the High Court should ordinarily decline writ relief and require the litigant to pursue the alternate remedy before the appropriate appellate forum.

---