Statutory refund remedy must be exhausted before writ relief is sought for refund of excess tax paid on packing materials.

Where the statute provides a specific and efficacious refund mechanism, writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be used to bypass that remedy. The Gauhati HC noted that Section 50 of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 permits refund of excess tax, and Rule 29(1) of the Assam Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 prescribes the mode and time for filing the claim, including condonation on sufficient cause. Because this statutory procedure existed, the petitioner was required to pursue it first for refund of entry tax on packing materials. The writ petition was not entertained on the refund issue at that stage, and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory refund application process.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition seeking refund of entry tax paid on packing materials was maintainable without first availing the statutory refund mechanism under the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and the Assam Value Added Tax Rules, 2005.

Analysis: The Court noted that the statutory scheme under Section 50 of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 provides a mechanism for refund where tax has been paid in excess of what is due, and Rule 29(1) of the Assam Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 prescribes the manner and time for filing such claim, including power to condone delay on sufficient cause. Since a detailed refund procedure exists, the petitioner was required to pursue that remedy before invoking writ jurisdiction. The Court therefore declined to grant relief in the writ petition at that stage, while allowing the petitioner to file a refund application under the statutory provision.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained on merits for refund relief and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory refund remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute provides a specific and efficacious refund procedure, writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be invoked to bypass that remedy.

---