https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172062 Availability of an alternative statutory remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction where the challenge goes to the constitutional validity or vires of the provision itself. Here, the petition questioned not only the rejection of revised returns but also the legality of the time-limit under Section 35(4) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act in relation to the audit timeline and revised return regime. Because an appellate forum cannot decide vires, the High Court under Article 226 could be invoked. The single Judge should not have declined interference solely on the basis of alternative remedy, and the matter was required to be reconsidered on the statutory validity issue. en-us Wed, 17 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 23 Jul 2016 23:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172062 Availability of an alternative statutory remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction where the challenge goes to the constitutional validity or vires of the provision itself. Here, the petition questioned not only the rejection of revised returns but also the legality of the time-limit under Section 35(4) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act in relation to the audit timeline and revised return regime. Because an appellate forum cannot decide vires, the High Court under Article 226 could be invoked. The single Judge should not have declined interference solely on the basis of alternative remedy, and the matter was required to be reconsidered on the statutory validity issue. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 17 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172062