Alternate remedy rule bars writ petition where statutory appeal can address jurisdiction and settlement objections.

Where an efficacious statutory appeal is available under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, writ jurisdiction will not ordinarily be invoked to bypass that remedy. The court held that objections about the settlement legislation, the alleged inability of the appellate forum to examine them, and the claim of lack of jurisdiction could be raised in appeal, and that bald or misleading averments did not justify departure from the rule of alternate remedy. In the absence of pleaded exceptional grounds, the writ petition was not entertainable and the party was required to pursue the statutory appellate process, leaving the merits open for the appellate authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition should be entertained despite the availability of an efficacious statutory appeal under Section 26 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002.

Analysis: The petitioners had a statutory appeal against the impugned order, and the attempt to bypass that remedy was founded on assertions that the appellate forum could not examine the objections raised in relation to the settlement legislation and that the impugned action was without jurisdiction. The Court found that the rejection of those contentions could be examined in appeal, and that bald or misleading averments could not justify departure from the settled practice of exhausting alternate remedies. The Court also noted the absence of any pleaded or persuasive reason to invoke writ jurisdiction and treated the petition as an attempt to avoid the statutory appellate process.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertainable and the petitioner was required to pursue the statutory appeal.

Final Conclusion: The challenge was relegated to the appellate remedy, while the merits of the controversy were left open for consideration by the appellate authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory appeal is available, writ jurisdiction will not ordinarily be invoked to bypass that remedy, especially in the absence of exceptional grounds justifying departure from the rule of alternate remedy.

---