Statutory appeal bars writ jurisdiction where the appellate remedy remains effective despite deposit and notice objections.

A writ petition under Article 226 challenging an assessment under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act was treated as inappropriate where an efficacious statutory appeal was available. The court noted that a deposit requirement for appeal did not, by itself, render the remedy illusory, and that objections about the form of notice did not show that the assessment lay outside the Act. Alleged defects in natural justice involved factual questions suitable for appellate examination, including opportunity of hearing and the need for cross-examination. The petitioners' suppression of material facts and delay further supported refusal to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could be entertained against an assessment order under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 when an efficacious statutory appeal was available, and whether the alleged defects in notice and hearing justified bypassing the statutory remedy.

Analysis: The Act provided a complete appellate machinery, and the mere requirement of deposit of tax or penalty as a condition for appeal did not by itself make the statutory remedy illusory or ineffective. The distinction drawn from the cited authorities was that extraordinary writ jurisdiction may be invoked only where the statutory remedy is truly ill-suited to the situation, not merely because the assessee has to make a substantial deposit. The objection based on the form of notice was insufficient to show that the assessment was outside the Act or that the statutory remedy was unavailable. As to natural justice, the dispute turned on factual questions that could be examined by the appellate authority, including whether a reasonable opportunity was afforded and whether any material statement required cross-examination. The petitioners were also found to have suppressed material facts and to have contributed to the delay in the assessment proceedings.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in the circumstances, and the challenge to the assessment order was held not to warrant exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226.

Final Conclusion: The availability of an adequate statutory appeal and the absence of any extraordinary circumstance justified refusal to interfere in writ jurisdiction, leaving the assessees to pursue the remedy under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: Article 226 is not meant to short-circuit statutory remedies, and where a taxing statute provides an efficacious appellate mechanism, writ jurisdiction will not be invoked unless the remedy is truly ill-suited to extraordinary circumstances.

---