Statutory appellate remedy bars writ interference where no exceptional ground is shown; denial of hearing claim failed on the record.

Where a statutory appellate remedy is available against an order confirming duty demands, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should ordinarily not be invoked unless a recognised exceptional ground is shown, such as breach of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, violation of fundamental rights, or challenge to vires. The Court found no such ground here and held the writ petition not maintainable, relegating the petitioner to the appellate remedy. The plea of denial of personal hearing was also rejected because the record showed multiple virtual hearing opportunities were given and neither the petitioner nor the authorised representative appeared.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable in view of the statutory appellate remedy; (ii) Whether the plea of denial of personal hearing justified bypassing the alternative remedy.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable in view of the statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: The petition challenged an order-in-original confirming duty demands, while a statutory appeal was available. The order relied on settled law that where an efficacious appellate remedy exists, writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not to be exercised, save in exceptional circumstances such as breach of fundamental rights, violation of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction, or challenge to vires.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable on this ground and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appeal remedy.

Issue (ii): Whether the plea of denial of personal hearing justified bypassing the alternative remedy.

Analysis: The record reflected that opportunities of hearing were afforded through virtual mode on multiple dates, but neither the petitioner nor the authorised representative appeared. The claim of denial of personal hearing was therefore contrary to the record.

Conclusion: The contention of denial of personal hearing was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The petition was disposed of by declining writ interference and leaving the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: When a statutory appellate remedy is available, writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily be invoked unless a recognised exceptional ground is established; a plea contrary to the record cannot displace that rule.

---