Alternate statutory remedy bars writ intervention where tax assessees must ordinarily exhaust the appeal route first.

Writ petitions challenging orders under the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Act were declined because an efficacious statutory appeal was available under the tax statute. The Court distinguished maintainability from entertainability: the existence of an alternate remedy did not make the writ petition non-existent, but it justified refusal to exercise writ jurisdiction. In tax matters, the normal rule remains exhaustion of the statutory remedy, subject only to limited exceptions. Allegations of lack of proper notice or hearing did not displace that rule on the facts noted, as the petitioners were treated as aware of the proceedings. The proper course was to pursue the statutory appeal remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions were to be entertained despite the availability of an efficacious statutory appeal under the relevant tax statute, and whether the petitioners could successfully insist on writ adjudication on the ground of alleged want of proper notice or opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: The statutory framework provided an appellate remedy against orders passed under Section 49 of the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax, 2005. The Court noted that the distinction between maintainability and entertainability is material: existence of an alternate remedy does not render a writ petition nonexistent, but the writ court may decline to exercise jurisdiction where a statutory forum is available. The prior Division Bench view was that the petitioners were aware of the nature of the proceedings and could not deny opportunity of hearing on that basis. The Court also relied on settled Supreme Court authority that, particularly in tax matters, the normal rule is exhaustion of the statutory remedy, subject only to limited exceptions.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not to be entertained, and the petitioners were to pursue the statutory appeal remedy.

---