Alternative appellate remedy bars writ challenge, while heir liability for tax recovery requires inquiry into inherited estate and hearing.

Writ jurisdiction was not ordinarily available to challenge assessment orders where an efficacious appellate remedy existed under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, so the assessment challenge was not entertained. Recovery against an heir of a deceased partner could proceed only to the extent of assets inherited from the estate, but only after a factual inquiry into what property devolved and after giving the heir an opportunity of hearing. Coercive recovery without such inquiry and hearing was held impermissible in that form, while the assessment orders themselves remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner could challenge the assessment orders in writ jurisdiction without first exhausting the appellate remedy under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948; (ii) Whether demand and recovery proceedings could be initiated against the petitioner as an heir of the deceased partner without an inquiry into the estate received and without affording an opportunity of hearing.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner could challenge the assessment orders in writ jurisdiction without first exhausting the appellate remedy under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948.

Analysis: The assessment challenge was not entertained because the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy by way of appeal under Section 20 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. The writ court did not find it to upset the assessment orders in the absence of exhaustion of that remedy.

Conclusion: The challenge to the assessment orders was rejected against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether demand and recovery proceedings could be initiated against the petitioner as an heir of the deceased partner without an inquiry into the estate received and without affording an opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: The demand notice was founded on the premise that the petitioner was liable as an heir of the deceased partner, but recovery from an heir could lawfully proceed only to the extent of assets inherited from the estate. That required a factual inquiry and an opportunity to the petitioner to be heard on whether any estate had in fact devolved upon him. Since no such inquiry was made, the demand and coercive recovery could not stand in their present form.

Conclusion: The recovery proceedings against the petitioner were held invalid to the extent they proceeded without inquiry into inherited assets and without hearing the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The assessment orders were left undisturbed, but the recovery against the petitioner was confined to any assets received by him as heir, after proper inquiry, and coercive arrest for recovery was barred.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ challenge to a tax assessment will ordinarily not succeed where an effective appellate remedy exists, and recovery from an heir of a deceased dealer can be pursued only after determining the inherited estate and affording the heir an opportunity of hearing.

---