Alternative remedy rule bars Article 226 interference with sales tax assessment while statutory appeal remains pending.

A writ petition under Article 226 seeking to quash a sales tax assessment order was held not entertainable where the statute provided an adequate appellate and revisional remedy. The petitioner had already invoked the statutory hierarchy, and an appeal was pending before the Deputy Commissioner. The Court applied the principle that the ordinary remedy under the tax law should not be bypassed merely because the route to the High Court may be longer or more expensive. The cited exception to the alternative-remedy rule was distinguished because it concerned a writ of prohibition and a proceeding said to be wholly without jurisdiction. The petition was therefore dismissed at that stage.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 should be entertained to quash a sales tax assessment order when the statute provides an adequate appellate and revisional remedy.

Analysis: The petitioner had already availed the statutory hierarchy of remedies, with an appeal pending before the Deputy Commissioner. The Court held that the ordinary course prescribed by the sales tax law should not be bypassed, and that the existence of a long or expensive route to the High Court was not a sufficient ground for interference. The decision cited against interference on the basis of alternative remedy was distinguished because that case involved a writ of prohibition and a proceeding said to be wholly without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertainable at that stage and was dismissed.

---