Writ jurisdiction in tax disputes is limited where disputed facts and statutory remedies require departmental examination.

A joint writ petition challenging assessments for two years was not rejected on misjoinder because both years were attacked on substantially the same grounds and no separate prejudice arose from joinder. In tax matters, the High Court ordinarily declines writ interference where disputed facts must be examined and an effective statutory remedy exists. Here, the decisive question was whether reassessment notices had been issued before dissolution of the firm, a factual controversy requiring scrutiny of the record and service evidence. The Court therefore refused to act as a fact-finding forum on writ side and declined Article 226 relief, leaving the parties to the statutory assessment machinery.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a joint writ petition challenging assessments for two years was incompetent. (ii) Whether the High Court should exercise writ jurisdiction in a tax matter involving disputed facts and an available statutory remedy.

Issue (i): Whether a joint writ petition challenging assessments for two years was incompetent.

Analysis: The challenge for both years was founded on substantially the same grounds. Since the petition had already been admitted and no separate factual or legal prejudice arose from joinder, the objection based solely on the inclusion of more than one assessment year was not treated as a sufficient ground for rejection.

Conclusion: The joint petition was not rejected on the ground of misjoinder.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court should exercise writ jurisdiction in a tax matter involving disputed facts and an available statutory remedy.

Analysis: In tax matters, the existence of an alternative statutory remedy ordinarily weighs against writ interference, especially where the controversy turns on disputed facts that are better left to the departmental authorities. The Court noted that the decisive question was whether reassessment notices had been issued before dissolution of the firm, a factual issue requiring examination of the record and service evidence. The Court therefore declined to convert itself into a fact-finding forum on writ side.

Conclusion: Writ relief was declined and the petition was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The Court refused to interfere under Article 226 and left the parties to the statutory assessment machinery, resulting in dismissal of the petition.

Ratio Decidendi: Writ jurisdiction in tax matters should ordinarily not be invoked to decide disputed questions of fact where an effective statutory remedy exists, unless a patent want of jurisdiction is apparent on the face of the record.

---