Alternative statutory remedy bars writ challenge to VAT penalty and remand orders where appeal is available.

A writ petition challenging penalty and remand orders under the U.P. VAT Act, 2008 was held not maintainable because an efficacious statutory appeal under Section 57 was available. The Court reasoned that the petitioner could raise all factual and legal objections before the appellate authority, so there was no justification to bypass the statutory remedy and invoke Article 226. The petitioner was therefore relegated to the appellate forum, and writ jurisdiction was not exercised in light of the alternative remedy principle.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the penalty and remand orders under the U.P. VAT Act, 2008 was maintainable despite the availability of an alternative statutory appeal under Section 57.

Analysis: The impugned order was appealable under the statute, and the petitioner had an efficacious appellate remedy to raise all factual and legal objections before the appellate forum. In these circumstances, the Court found no justification to bypass the statutory remedy and invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in view of the alternative remedy and the petitioner was relegated to the appellate forum.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory appeal is available, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be exercised to challenge an order under the taxing statute.

---