Efficacious statutory reference remedy bars parallel writ jurisdiction where the same challenge is already pursued under the Act.

Where a taxing statute provides an efficacious reference mechanism for questions of law, a writ petition under Article 226 should ordinarily not be entertained if the same statutory remedy is already being pursued on the same subject matter. The Central Excise Act scheme under Sections 35H, 35J and 35K is described as a complete route for reference and consequential disposal in conformity with the High Court's opinion. The ordinary rule of judicial restraint applies when the statute creates a hierarchy of remedies, and bypassing that route is justified only in exceptional cases such as lack of jurisdiction, breach of natural justice, or a vires challenge. Parallel pursuit of writ and reference remedies is therefore impermissible.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable when the statute provided an efficacious reference remedy under the Central Excise Act and the petitioner had already invoked that remedy in respect of the same Tribunal order.

Analysis: The writ petition challenged the Tribunal's order, but the statutory scheme under Sections 35H, 35J and 35K of the Central Excise Act provided a complete reference mechanism for determination of questions of law and consequential disposal by the Tribunal in conformity with the High Court's opinion. The Court held that the remedy of reference was not merely theoretical, but an available and efficacious alternative remedy, and the petitioner could not pursue the reference and a writ petition simultaneously in respect of the same subject matter. The Court further held that the ordinary rule of restraint applies where the statute provides a hierarchy of remedies, and no exceptional circumstance such as lack of jurisdiction, breach of natural justice, or challenge to vires was shown to justify bypassing the statutory route.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy and parallel proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing statute provides an efficacious statutory reference remedy, a writ petition under Article 226 should ordinarily not be entertained, particularly when the party is simultaneously pursuing the same statutory remedy on the same cause.

---