Alternative appellate remedy bars writ jurisdiction against reassessment orders absent a true jurisdictional defect or statutory invalidity.

A writ petition under Article 226 was held not maintainable against a sales tax reassessment order where the statute provided an effective appellate remedy. The challenge concerned the interpretation and application of the reassessment power under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, not the validity of the statute itself, and the existence of a question of law did not justify bypassing the appellate hierarchy. The Court also treated the need to deposit tax pending appeal as insufficient to render the remedy inadequate. No true jurisdictional defect was shown, so the petition was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable against a sales tax reassessment order when the statute provided an appellate remedy, and whether the dispute raised a jurisdictional issue.

Analysis: The assessment was made under section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act on a finding of fact that the entire turnover was liable to tax. The challenge turned on the interpretation and application of the statutory power of reassessment, not on any attack to the validity of the Act itself. An appeal was available under the Act, and the mere fact that tax might have to be deposited pending appeal did not make the statutory remedy inadequate. The existence of a question of law did not by itself justify bypassing the appellate hierarchy and invoking writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in the presence of an effective alternative remedy, and no jurisdictional error was shown. The petition was rightly rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute provides an adequate appellate remedy, a writ petition will ordinarily not lie against an assessment order merely because a question of law is raised, unless there is a true jurisdictional defect or invalidity of the law itself.

---