Alternate remedy in fiscal matters bars writ review where a statutory appeal is available and no extraordinary case is shown.

In fiscal matters, a writ petition challenging an order-in-original will ordinarily not be entertained where an efficacious statutory appeal is available. The Court held that the existence of an appeal is the normal rule against direct recourse to writ jurisdiction, and that the petitioner's multiple grounds required factual examination better suited to appellate scrutiny. It further held that inability to make pre-deposit was not established merely from audited accounts and did not render the alternate remedy inefficacious. Departure from the rule of exhaustion of alternate remedy is permitted only in extraordinary cases, which was not shown here, so the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appellate remedy with all contentions kept open.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the order-in-original, including on the ground of delayed adjudication and inability to make pre-deposit, should be entertained or the petitioner should be relegated to the statutory appeal remedy.

Analysis: The order-in-original was appealable, and the Court treated the existence of a statutory appeal as the normal rule barring direct invocation of writ jurisdiction. It noted that the petition raised multiple grounds beyond delay, many of which would require factual examination better suited to appellate scrutiny. The Court also held that inability to pay pre-deposit was not established merely from the audited accounts and that such a requirement did not make the alternate remedy inefficacious. In fiscal matters, departure from the rule of exhaustion of alternate remedy is to be made only in extraordinary cases, which was not found here.

Conclusion: The Court declined to entertain the writ petition and relegated the petitioner to the statutory appeal remedy, while keeping all contentions open and directing the Appellate Authority to consider any appeal on its own merits without going into limitation if filed within the stated time.

Final Conclusion: The challenge was not adjudicated on merits in writ jurisdiction, and the petitioner was left to pursue the appellate forum as the proper statutory remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: In fiscal matters, where an efficacious statutory appeal is available, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not be used to bypass the statutory regime unless an extraordinary case is made out.

---