As per the case facts, the High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by the appellant, directing them to use the appeal remedy available under Section 33 of the VAT ... Act. The appellant challenged this order. The reason for the appeal to the Supreme Court was to contest the High Court's decision to relegate the appellant to an alternative remedy instead of hearing the writ petition on its merits. The question arose whether the High Court was justified in declining interference on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy of appeal. Finally, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, invalidating the impugned revisional orders. The Court found that the revisional authority's orders suffered from patent illegality and demonstrated a lack of understanding of principles regulating the exercise of suo motu revisional power, and were in breach of judicial discipline when confronted with orders from a superior tribunal. This implied that in certain circumstances, a writ petition should be entertained despite the availability of an alternative remedy, especially when there is a patent illegality or impropriety in the orders of lower authorities.