Alternative statutory remedy bars writ review of tax demand orders where an appellate remedy is available.

A writ petition challenging a tax demand notice for recovery of penalty and interest was held not maintainable because an efficacious statutory appellate remedy was available. The High Court declined to examine the merits of the Commercial Taxes Officer's order under article 226, leaving the petitioners to pursue appeal. The court also noted that the constitutional validity of section 9(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act had already been upheld by the Supreme Court, so that challenge did not survive for consideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the demand notice was maintainable in view of the availability of an appellate remedy.

Analysis: The demand notice related to recovery of penalty and interest under the sales tax enactments. The challenge on merits was directed against the order of the Commercial Taxes Officer, but the petitioners had an effective statutory remedy by way of appeal. The Court held that, in the presence of such a remedy, the merits of the order could not be examined in proceedings under article 226 of the Constitution. The Court also noted that the constitutional validity of section 9(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act had already been upheld by the Supreme Court, and therefore that challenge did not survive for consideration in this petition.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained on merits and was dismissed, leaving the petitioners to pursue the appellate remedy.

Final Conclusion: The decision affirms the rule that writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be invoked to test the correctness of a tax demand order when an efficacious statutory appeal is available.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory appellate remedy is available against a tax demand order, the High Court will decline to examine the merits in writ jurisdiction.

---