Unreasoned orders and ignored material contentions can justify writ interference despite alternate remedy, with remand for fresh reasoned consideration.

A writ court may decline to insist on an alternate appellate remedy where the impugned order is unreasoned and fails to address material contentions, including reliance on an exemption notification and related clarification. In such circumstances, the absence of reasons and non-consideration of the petitioner's case can justify judicial interference, particularly where both sides accept that fresh examination is appropriate. The order was set aside and the matter remanded to the Tribunal for reconsideration afresh in accordance with natural justice and by a reasoned decision.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition should be entertained despite the availability of an alternate appellate remedy, and whether the impugned order, being unreasoned and having failed to deal with the material contentions, should be quashed and the matter remanded for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The petition involved a preliminary objection based on alternate remedy, but the impugned order was found to have omitted discussion of several substantial contentions raised by the petitioner, including the alleged applicability of a customs exemption notification and related governmental clarification. In these circumstances, and with consensus between the parties, the Court considered it appropriate not to insist on exhaustion of the alternate remedy. The lack of reasons in support of the Tribunal's conclusion and the failure to address the petitioner's case justified interference and a remand. The matter was directed to be reconsidered afresh by the Tribunal in accordance with natural justice and by a reasoned order.

Conclusion: The writ petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the Tribunal for fresh decision.

---