Writ jurisdiction should not be invoked when an alternative statutory remedy is available, especially in tax matters.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. Kumar Harshavardhan, learned counsel representing Mr. A.V.A. Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for the State Tax for the respondents. Perused the record.

2. The present is second round of writ petition preferred by the petitioner. The earlier was W.P.No.16467 of 2025, decided on 23.06.2025. The petitioner at that point of time had challenged the order of the Revisional Authority dated 11.06.2025 on the ground that the petitioner’s rectification application and repeated representation are all pending consideration. In the meanwhile, the order dated 11.06.2025 was passed considering the total factual matrix of the case. The Division Bench of this High Court disposed of the writ petition by making the following observations:

3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties reached to a consensus. It is agreed that since the petitioner’s representations dated 01.11.2022, 02.11.2022 and 04.11.2022 are pending consideration before the 2nd respondent/competent authority, the impugned order, dated 11.06.2025, may be set aside and the said respondent may be directed to take a decision on the said representations within fifteen days from the date of communication of this order.

4. In view of consensus arrived at, the impugned order dated 11.06.2025 is set aside. The 2^nd respondent/competent authority shall decide the representations, in accordance with law, within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, without expressing any opinion on the merits. At this stage, the petitioner undertakes to appear before the 2^nd respondent/competent authority on 09.07.2025 at 11.30 AM and for this purpose, no notice will be required to be issued. No costs.

3. Pursuant to the disposal of the said writ petition, the respondents took up the representation that the petitioner had filed and after hearing the parties, has now passed a fresh order on 28.07.2025, with its consequential order being passed on 20.09.2025, which has now been challenged through the present writ petition before this Court.

4. The substantive contention of the petitioner was that in the representation which was referred to before the writ Court in the earlier round of writ petition, the petitioner has raised the issue in respect of three points, particularly pertaining to transit sale, high sea sale and SEZ sale. According to the petitioner, so far as the transit sale, SEZ sale are concerned, the Revisional Authority after due consideration of the representation have decided the issue in favour of the assesses and has reduced the additional tax liability from Rs.5,39,38,137/- to Rs.2,98,94,898/-.

5. The contention of the petitioner is that as regards the issue of high sea sales, the Revisioanl Authority has not dealt with the same and have thus violated the earlier order of this Court in the earlier writ petition and had prayed for setting aside of the impugned order and the matter be remanded back to the authority concerned for a fresh consideration on the aspect of high sea sales.

6. The learned Special Government Pleader, on the other hand, opposing the contentions of the petitioner submits that at the outset the writ petition cannot be maintainable as the order is one which is appealable, secondly the ground that the petitioner has raised again is not correct, as the point of high sea sales also has been duly considered, but has not gone in favour of the asessee. Thus, it cannot be said that the authority has not considered the aspect, as the impugned order itself would go to reflect the consideration of the objection as regards the hi