Alternative statutory remedy bars writ challenge where adjudication considers replies, submissions, and dispute on classification, exemption, and valuation.

Where an adjudication order shows that the proper officer considered the taxpayer's replies, written submissions and supporting material on classification, exemption and valuation, writ interference under Article 226 is ordinarily unwarranted if an efficacious statutory appeal is available. The High Court held that the petitioner could raise all factual and legal grounds before the appellate authority and declined to examine the demand on merits in writ jurisdiction. The writ petition was therefore not entertained and was dismissed, leaving the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition should be entertained in view of the efficacious statutory appeal remedy.

Analysis: The impugned order was found to contain consideration of the petitioner's replies, written submissions and supporting material, with the proper officer recording findings on the classification dispute, exemption claim and valuation. In those circumstances, the Court held that no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was made out when an appellate remedy was available, and the petitioner could raise all factual and legal grounds before the appellate authority.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained and was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner was left to pursue the statutory appeal, and the High Court declined to examine the demand on merits in writ jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: When an adjudication order reflects consideration of the parties' materials and an efficacious statutory appeal lies, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should ordinarily not be invoked to challenge the demand on merits.

---