Pending statutory appeal and disputed notice service justified refusal of writ relief, leaving the issue to appellate scrutiny.

Writ interference was declined because the petitioner had already invoked the statutory appeal, and the disputed service of the pre-assessment notice was treated as a matter for the appellate authority. The court held that where an effective appellate remedy is pending, writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not exercised, especially on questions that require factual examination. The petitioner was nevertheless to be allowed to contest service of the notice and, if necessary, seek cross-examination of the process-server before the appellate forum. The appeal was then to be decided on merits according to law if service was established.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable despite the pendency of an appeal under the sales tax statute, and whether the alleged non-service of the pre-assessment notice entitled the petitioner to writ relief.

Analysis: The petitioner's remedy by way of appeal had already been invoked, which weighed against interference in writ jurisdiction. At the same time, the controversy regarding service of the pre-assessment notice was treated as a matter requiring examination by the appellate authority. The petitioner was to be afforded an opportunity to prove that the notice dated 9 September 1966 had not been served on him, and the department was directed to produce the process-server for cross-examination if necessary. The appellate authority was then to decide the appeal on merits according to law if service was established.

Conclusion: Writ relief was declined, and the service dispute was left to be decided in the pending appeal.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition did not result in interference with the assessment order, but the petitioner was granted a procedural opportunity before the appellate authority to challenge the alleged service of notice.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an effective appellate remedy is pending, writ interference is ordinarily declined, while disputed questions relating to service of notice and procedural fairness may be left for determination by the appellate forum.

---