Alternative remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction where a taxing notification is challenged for lack of authority and retrospective operation.

A writ petition challenging a taxing notification on the ground that it lacked authority and operated retrospectively could not be rejected merely because an appellate remedy existed. When the challenge goes to jurisdiction, including whether the notification could validly operate with retrospective effect, the High Court must examine the jurisdictional fact under Article 226 rather than decline relief on the alternative-remedy rule. The refusal to entertain the writ petition was therefore erroneous, and the writ remedy remained available for adjudication on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in declining to entertain the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy when the challenge involved the validity and retrospective operation of the taxing notification, and whether such a jurisdictional objection required adjudication in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The challenge was not confined to the quantum of tax but went to the authority of the taxing notification itself and to its asserted retrospective or retroactive operation. Where the impugned action is questioned for want of jurisdiction, the existence of an appellate remedy does not by itself bar the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A dispute as to whether the notification could operate retrospectively was treated as a jurisdictional fact that ought to have been examined by the High Court, and the refusal to entertain the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy was held to be erroneous.

Conclusion: The High Court ought to have entertained the writ petition; its refusal to do so was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

Final Conclusion: The judgment restores the writ remedy where the levy is challenged on jurisdictional grounds, while leaving all merits open for adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: The rule of alternative remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction where the impugned action is assailed for lack of jurisdiction or turns on a jurisdictional fact, including the legal validity or retrospective operation of a taxing notification.

---