Alternative statutory remedy prevails where delegated revisional orders under sales tax law are appealable before the appellate authority

A delegated revisional order under the Odisha Sales Tax Act, 1947 remained amenable to the statutory appeal provided by Section 23(4)(c) read with Rule 80, because the Additional Commissioner exercised revisional power as a delegate of the Commissioner. The availability of that appellate remedy was not defeated by the delegated character of the order, and challenges to the twin conditions under Rule 80, along with other factual and jurisdictional objections, were held to be matters for the appellate authority. Writ interference was therefore not justified where an efficacious alternative remedy existed and the impugned order was not shown to be one passed without jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition should be entertained against a revisional order passed by the Additional Commissioner acting as a delegate of the Commissioner under the Odisha Sales Tax Act, 1947, or whether the petitioner should be relegated to the statutory appeal under Section 23(4)(c) of the Act.

Analysis: The revisional power under Section 23(4)(a) of the Odisha Sales Tax Act, 1947 was delegated to the Additional Commissioner. Once that delegated power was exercised in revision, the scheme of Section 23, read with Rule 80 of the Odisha Sales Tax Rules, 1947, provided a statutory appeal against the revisional order to the Commissioner where the order was passed by an authority subordinate to the Commissioner. The Court held that the availability of that appeal was not rendered futile merely because the Additional Commissioner acted as a delegate. The challenge to the satisfaction of the twin conditions under Rule 80, and the other factual and jurisdictional objections raised by the petitioner, were matters for the appellate authority and not for writ interference at that stage. The Court further held that no case was made out for bypassing the alternative statutory remedy or for treating the impugned order as one passed without jurisdiction in a manner that would justify certiorari.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appeal remedy; the objection based on alternative remedy was upheld against the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a revisional order is passed by a delegated authority under the statute and an efficacious appeal lies under the same statutory scheme, writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be exercised to examine the merits or jurisdictional objections that can be raised before the appellate authority.

---