Writ remedy and escaped turnover limits: alternative appeal did not bar review, and arbitrary assessment was invalid.

An alternative statutory appeal does not by itself bar writ relief under Article 226; exhaustion of remedies is ordinarily a rule of policy and discretion, and a remedy conditioned on prior tax payment may not be equally effective. In escaped-turnover proceedings under section 14(4), the authority must show that turnover truly escaped assessment on the material available. Where the disputed transactions were already included in the timely monthly return and taxed thereon, section 14(4) could not be invoked. An estimate based on shifting bases and an unsupported 82-day multiplier was arbitrary, so the assessment and consequential penalty were invalid.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ petition under Article 226 was barred because the petitioner had an alternative statutory appeal remedy; and (ii) whether the notice and assessment proceedings under section 14(4) relating to alleged escaped turnover, and the consequential penalty, were valid.

Issue (i): whether the writ petition under Article 226 was barred because the petitioner had an alternative statutory appeal remedy.

Analysis: The availability of another remedy does not by itself bar certiorari. The rule that statutory remedies should ordinarily be exhausted is a rule of policy and discretion, not a rule of law. Where the alternative remedy is onerous or conditioned upon prior payment of tax, it is not necessarily an effective remedy for purposes of writ relief.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection failed and the writ petition was maintainable.

Issue (ii): whether the notice and assessment proceedings under section 14(4) relating to alleged escaped turnover, and the consequential penalty, were valid.

Analysis: Section 14(4) applies only where turnover has escaped assessment. The disputed transactions were included in the monthly return filed within time under rule 13(2) and were taxed on that return, so they had not escaped assessment. The assessing authority also shifted from one basis to another and ultimately adopted a multiplier of 82 days without material, rendering the estimate arbitrary and unsupported. As the assessment itself was invalid, the penalty based on it could not stand.

Conclusion: The proceedings under section 14(4) were unauthorised and the assessment and penalty were invalid.

Final Conclusion: The petition was allowed, the impugned assessment order was quashed, and no costs were awarded.

Ratio Decidendi: Existence of an alternative statutory remedy does not bar certiorari where the remedy is not equally effective, and escaped-assessment proceedings cannot be sustained unless the turnover has truly escaped assessment on the material available; an arbitrary estimate unsupported by evidence will invalidate the assessment and any consequential penalty.

---