Writ jurisdiction and reassessment notices: alternate statutory remedies bar Article 226 intervention absent jurisdictional defect.

A writ petition against a reassessment notice under the sales tax law was held not maintainable where the assessee had an adequate statutory remedy to object before the assessing authority and, if needed, pursue appellate and revisional remedies. Interference under Article 226 was confined to exceptional cases such as lack or excess of jurisdiction or breach of natural justice, and no patent jurisdictional defect was shown in issuing the notice under section 12. The disputed interpretation of packing material and related expressions was left to be examined in reassessment proceedings, and the pendency of a reference in another matter did not justify restraining the authority from proceeding according to law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition against a notice for reassessment of sales tax should be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an alternate statutory remedy was available and the assessing authority had jurisdiction to issue the notice.

Analysis: The available statutory machinery under the sales tax law provided the assessee an opportunity to raise objections before the assessing authority and, if necessary, pursue the appellate and revisional remedies. Interference under Article 226 is warranted only in exceptional cases involving lack of jurisdiction, excess of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, or similar grounds. No patent lack of jurisdiction was shown in the issuing of the notice under section 12, and the disputed interpretation of packing material and related expressions could be examined by the assessing authority in the reassessment proceedings. The pendency of a reference in another matter did not justify restraining the assessing authority from proceeding according to law.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in the facts of the case and the special appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: The statutory remedy was held sufficient, and the High Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction against the reassessment notice.

---