Alternative statutory remedy bars writ jurisdiction where Section 35L provides a direct appellate route in revenue matters.

A writ petition challenging a revenue dispute was held not maintainable because the Central Excise Act, 1944 provided a specific appellate route under Section 35L to the Supreme Court. The court held that the existence of that statutory remedy could not be ignored merely because Article 226/227 jurisdiction is generally available in appropriate cases. Authorities cited in support of writ intervention were confined to their own factual and constitutional context and did not justify bypassing the prescribed appellate mechanism. As the alternative-remedy rule applied and no recognised exception was shown, the writ court declined to short-circuit the statutory process and dismissed the petition.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory appeal provided under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The statutory scheme provided a direct remedy to the Supreme Court under Section 35L, and the existence of that remedy could not be treated as redundant merely because Article 226/227 jurisdiction is generally available in appropriate cases. The reasoning in the relied upon authorities was confined to their own factual and constitutional setting and did not authorise bypassing a specific appellate remedy created by the statute. The writ court ordinarily does not short-circuit the statutory machinery when an equally efficacious remedy is available, especially in revenue matters where the exception to the alternative remedy rule is not attracted.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed against the assessee.

---