Alternative statutory remedy bars writ challenge to a sales tax assessment, while tax recovery requires lawful service of demand notice.

A writ challenge to a sales tax assessment was not entertained because an effective statutory appeal was available, and Article 226 is ordinarily not invoked at the initial stage where an alternative remedy exists. Recovery of the assessed tax was held unsustainable because lawful service of the demand notice was not established; despatch and attempted service were insufficient without proof of actual service. The assessment order was left undisturbed, while the recovery steps were quashed for procedural defect.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the challenge to the assessment order under the sales tax law was maintainable in writ jurisdiction in view of the availability of an alternative statutory remedy; and (ii) whether recovery of the assessed tax could be sustained when service of the demand notice was not duly established.

Issue (i): whether the challenge to the assessment order under the sales tax law was maintainable in writ jurisdiction in view of the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

Analysis: The assessment order had been made under the sales tax law, and the petitioners had a statutory appeal available against that order. Where an effective alternative remedy exists, the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily not exercised to examine the validity of the assessment order at the initial stage.

Conclusion: The challenge to the assessment order was not entertained in writ jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): whether recovery of the assessed tax could be sustained when service of the demand notice was not duly established.

Analysis: Recovery of assessed tax can proceed only when the demand notice is served in accordance with law. The record indicated despatch and attempted service, but the notice and process-server report did not establish that the requisite demand notice had actually been served on the petitioners. In the absence of lawful service of the demand notice, the recovery process was procedurally defective.

Conclusion: The recovery proceedings were unsustainable and were quashed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was allowed only to the extent of invalidating the recovery steps, while the assessment order itself was left undisturbed because an alternative remedy was available.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory appeal is available, writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not invoked to challenge an assessment order, and tax recovery cannot be enforced unless the demand notice has been lawfully served on the assessee.

---