Alternative statutory remedy bars writ relief where further appeal remains available under the VAT framework.

The writ petition challenging a penalty order under the M.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2002 was held not maintainable because an efficacious statutory remedy remained available. The petitioner had already pursued the appellate hierarchy, and the Court noted that a further statutory appeal existed. It also observed that the High Court may, in an appropriate case, examine issues not decided or wrongly decided by the Appellate Board under Section 53(6)(a) and (6)(b). On that basis, extraordinary writ jurisdiction was not to be invoked where the alternative statutory remedy had not been exhausted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the availability of an efficacious statutory remedy under the M.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2002.

Analysis: The petition challenged the penalty order passed under Section 52 of the M.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2002 after the petitioner had already pursued the statutory appellate hierarchy. The availability of a further statutory appeal was noticed, and it was also observed that the High Court could, in an appropriate case, determine issues not decided or wrongly decided by the Appellate Board under Section 53(6)(a) and (6)(b) of the Act. In these circumstances, the extraordinary writ jurisdiction was not to be invoked when an efficacious remedy remained available.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed on the ground of availability of an efficacious alternative remedy.

---