Alternative statutory remedies barred writ interference against provisional tax assessment and demand under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act.

A writ challenge to provisional assessment, demand notice and account attachment under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 was treated as barred where effective statutory remedies were available. The scheme distinguished action for evasion or avoidance of tax under section 7-B, with immediate payment and recovery consequences under section 11-A, from regular assessment and recovery under sections 10 and 11. Because the assessee could seek setting aside of the ex parte assessment under section 10-C and pursue an appeal under section 13, Article 226 relief was not to be used to bypass the statutory process in revenue matters. The assessment action was therefore not shown to be wholly without jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the provisional assessment and demand was maintainable in view of the statutory remedies available under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, and whether the action taken under the provisional assessment provisions was without jurisdiction.

Analysis: The petitioner challenged the provisional assessment, demand notice, and attachment of accounts. The statutory scheme provided distinct remedies where the assessing authority proceeded on the basis of evasion or avoidance of tax under section 7-B, with immediate payment liability and consequential recovery measures under section 11-A, while regular assessment and recovery were governed by sections 10 and 11. The petitioner had also filed an application under section 10-C to set aside the ex parte assessment and had a remedy of appeal under section 13. The existence of these remedies, coupled with the principle that writ jurisdiction should not be used to bypass statutory procedure in revenue matters, weighed against interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in the face of effective alternative statutory remedies, and the assessment action was not shown to be wholly without jurisdiction.

---