Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to bypass statutory alternative remedies or to reconsider merits of non-perverse factual findings.

The petitioner, a company engaged in coal extraction from the Parbatpur Coal Block, challenged the assessment of tax for the year 2009-10.

The Assessing Authority passed a tax order on 10.09.2012, which was challenged before the Appellate Authority.

The Appellate Authority remanded the matter regarding "Form F" to the Assessing Authority for factual verification against bills and invoices.

The petitioner filed revision petitions (DN 13 & 14 of 2014) before the Commercial Taxes Tribunal; DN 14 (against remand) was held non-maintainable, and DN 13 was dismissed on merits.

A subsequent review petition was dismissed on 20.12.2017.

The petitioner then invoked the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226, arguing that coal use restrictions imposed by the District Forest Officer (DFO) were ultra vires and that the Tribunal ignored a 2011 Ministry of Coal letter.

1. Whether the writ petition was maintainable given the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 82 of the JVAT Act.

2. Whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the revision against a remand order and the subsequent review petition.

3. Whether the petitioner could challenge the validity of conditions in a lease deed/allocation letter for the first time during tax review proceedings.

The Court applied the principle regarding alternative remedies as established in Rikhab Chand Jain v. Union of India & Ors. (2025 INSC 1337) and Thansingh Nathmal v. A. Mazid, which holds that where a statute provides a remedy before the High Court itself (such as a tax reference), writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should be the exception, not the rule.

The Court applied Section 81 of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax (JVAT) Act, which limits the scope of review to "mistakes apparent from the record," and the principle that concurrent factual findings by tax authorities should not be lightly disturbed in revisional jurisdiction unless there is a jurisdictional error.

The Court observed that the petitioner failed to exhaust the alternative remedy under Section 82 of the JVAT Act but proceeded to decide on merits to finalize the long-pending litigation.

Regarding the revision (DN 14/2014), the Court found no error in the Tribunal’s holding of non-maintainability, as a remand for verification of documents does not constitute a final revisable order.

Regarding the review petition, the Court noted that the petitioner sought to introduce new evidence (a 2011 Ministry of Coal letter) which was never presented at the assessment, appeal, or revision stages; thus, it did not constitute an "error apparent on the face of the record" under Section 81.

The Court rejected the argument that DFO conditions were ultra vires, noting the petitioner had accepted the coal allocation with those conditions and never challenged them before a competent forum prior to the tax default.

The Court characterized the multiple legal filings as a strategy to delay tax payments.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition and vacated all interim orders.