Adequate statutory remedy limits writ interference in sales tax disputes; best judgment assessment timing stays for the statutory forum.

Adequate statutory appeal or revision will ordinarily bar writ interference in sales tax matters unless the record shows patent illegality, clear lack of authority, or manifest error of law. The Court also treated the commencement and timeliness of best judgment assessment as a fact-sensitive question to be examined from the assessment record and ordinarily left to the statutory forum. A deposit requirement for appeal, by itself, was not enough to make the remedy ineffective. On that reasoning, the writ challenge to the assessment, notice, and limitation objection was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned sales tax assessment and notice could be quashed in writ jurisdiction despite the availability of statutory appeal and revision. (ii) Whether the material showed that the Assessing Authority had initiated or completed best judgment assessment beyond the permissible period so as to render the assessment without jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned sales tax assessment and notice could be quashed in writ jurisdiction despite the availability of statutory appeal and revision.

Analysis: The existence of an adequate, convenient and effective statutory remedy was treated as a material consideration against interference under the extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The record did not disclose any manifest illegality, patent error of law, or clear want of authority that would justify bypassing the statutory appellate machinery. The need to deposit tax for appeal did not, by itself, make the remedy illusory or ineffective.

Conclusion: The writ court declined to interfere on this ground; the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the material showed that the Assessing Authority had initiated or completed best judgment assessment beyond the permissible period so as to render the assessment without jurisdiction.

Analysis: The question when best judgment assessment can be said to commence was treated as dependent on the facts of each case and on the assessment record. On the materials before the Court, it was not possible to conclude that the Assessing Authority had failed to proceed within time or that the impugned proceedings were plainly outside the statute. The Court therefore held that the controversy was one to be pursued in the ordinary statutory forum rather than in writ proceedings.

Conclusion: The challenge on limitation and jurisdiction failed; the issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The Court held that neither the availability of a statutory appellate remedy nor the pleaded limitation objection justified invocation of writ jurisdiction, and both petitions were rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing statute provides an adequate appellate or revisional remedy, and no patent illegality or clear jurisdictional error is shown on the face of the record, the High Court should ordinarily refuse writ interference and leave questions such as the timing and character of best judgment assessment to the statutory authorities.

---