The main legal point established in the judgment is that where a liability not existing at common law is created by a statute, the remedy provided by that statute alone must be pursued.

MARKANDEYA KATJU, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS Writ Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 5. 11. 2003 in WP (C) No. 21/2003.

( 2 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

( 3 ) THE facts of the case have been set out in the judgment of the learned Single judge and, hence, we are not repeating the same except where necessary.

( 4 ) THE writ petition was filed against the impugned assessment order dated 17. 9. 2002 vide Annexure P-16 to the writ petition.

( 5 ) IT may be mentioned that against the aforesaid assessment order there is a right of appeal provided for under Section 169 of the Delhi Municipal corporation of Delhi Act, 1957 (for short "the Act" ).

( 6 ) IT is well settled that if there is an alternative remedy, ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained. No doubt, an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the entertaining of a writ petition, but since writ is a discretionary remedy, a writ petition is ordinarily not entertained if there is an alternative remedy. This principle applies with even greater force in tax matters where it has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that there should be no short-circuiting of the statutory remedy of appeals/revisions.

( 7 ) THUS in Titaghur Paper Mill Company Ltd and Others v. State of Orissa and another, AIR 1983 SC 603, the facts were that a writ petition was filed in the orissa High Court challenging the assessment orders made by the Assistant Sales tax Officer under the Central Sales Tax. In this connection, the Supreme Court observed (vide paragraph 11):- "under the scheme of the Act, there is a hierarchy of authorities before which the petitioners can get adequate redress against the wrongful acts complained of. The petitioners have the right to prefer an appeal before the prescribed authority under sub-s. (1) of S. 23 of the Act. If the petitioners are dissatisfied with the decision in the appeal, they can prefer a further appeal to the Tribunal under sub-s. (3) of S. 23 of the Act, and then ask for a case to be stated upon a question of law for the opinion of the High Court under s. 24 of the Act. The Act provides for a complete machinery to challenge an order of assessment, and the impugned orders of assessment can only be challenged by the mode prescribed by the Act and not by a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. It is now well recognized that where a right or liability is created by a statute which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute only must be availed of. This rule was stated with great clarity by Willes, J in Wolverhampton New Water Works Co. Hawkesford (1859) 6 CBNS 336 at p. 356 in the following passage:"there are three classes of cases in which a liability may be established founded upon statute. ******** But there is a third class, viz. , where a liability not existing at common law is created by a statute which at the same time gives a special and particular remedy for enforcing it******** the remedy provided by the statute must be followed, and it is not competent to the party to pursue the course applicable to cases of the second class. The form given by the statute must be adopted and adhered to. "the rule laid down in this passage was approved by the House of Lords in Neville v. London Express Newspaper Ltd. , 1919 AC 368 and has been reaffirmed by the privy Council in Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v. Gordon Grant and co. , 1935 AC 532 and Secretary of State v. Mask and Co. , AIR 1940 PC 105. It has also been held to be equally applicable to enforcement of rights, and has been followed by this Court throughout. The High Court was therefore justified in dismissing the writ petitions in limine. "

( 8 ) THE above decision makes it clear that where a liability not existing at common law is created by a statute, then the remedy provided by that statute alone can be pursued. In the present case the liability of proper

Click Here to Read the rest of this document