Writ of prohibition and alternative remedy bar prevent writ review where taxability issues should be decided by the statutory forum.

A writ of prohibition is generally unavailable where an adequate statutory remedy exists, unless there is a patent lack of jurisdiction, constitutional infirmity, or infringement of fundamental rights. Here, the petitioner had not pursued the available remedy before the Deputy Commissioner, and the objections raised concerned the merits of taxability, including the distinction between timber and firewood and the applicability of sales tax provisions. Those issues were held to be matters for the competent statutory forum, not for writ intervention. The writ petitions were therefore not maintainable for failure to exhaust the statutory remedy and were dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions for prohibition were maintainable when the petitioner had not exhausted the statutory remedy and the dispute raised questions on the merits of taxability.

Analysis: A writ of prohibition is ordinarily issued to restrain an inferior authority from acting without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction, but the existence of an adequate statutory remedy normally weighs against interference. The bar of alternative remedy may not apply where the defect of jurisdiction is patent or where constitutional infirmity or infringement of fundamental rights is shown. On the facts, the petitioner had not pursued the available remedy before the Deputy Commissioner and the objections raised went to the merits, including the distinction between timber and firewood and the applicability of the sales tax provisions. The Court held that those matters ought to have been pursued before the competent statutory forum.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable for failure to exhaust the statutory remedy and were dismissed.

---