Alternative statutory remedy bars writ interference in pending tax search, seizure, and recovery proceedings.

Search and seizure proceedings under section 45 of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act were not shown to be vitiated, as the record indicated a constituted committee and material suggesting tax evasion. The recovery challenge also failed at this stage because the managing director's statement said the cheque for Rs. 5 lakhs was tendered voluntarily, and the Court found no safe basis to infer coercion or undue influence. As proceedings were still pending before the competent authority, and orders under section 45 were appealable as orders under section 27 read with section 61, writ intervention was declined in view of the effective statutory remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the search and seizure proceedings initiated under section 45 of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 were vitiated for want of a valid committee or sufficient material, whether recovery of Rs. 5 lakhs was shown to be coerced, and whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the alternative statutory remedy.

Analysis: The petition challenged the action taken under section 45 of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994. The record showed that a committee had been constituted, material had been gathered indicating evasion of tax, and the proceedings under section 45 were still pending before the competent authority. The statutory scheme treated orders under section 45 as orders under section 27 and therefore appealable under section 61 of the Act. The statement of the managing director recorded that the cheque for Rs. 5 lakhs was tendered of his own free will, and the Court found it unsafe to conclude coercion or undue influence at that stage. Since the matter was still sub judice before the authority, the Court declined to make any merits-based pronouncement on the legality of the recovery.

Conclusion: The challenge to the search, seizure, and recovery was not accepted, and the petition was not maintainable in writ jurisdiction in view of the efficacious statutory remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing statute provides an effective appellate remedy against orders arising from search, seizure, and assessment proceedings, the High Court will ordinarily decline writ interference at the interlocutory stage, especially when adjudication on the merits is still pending before the statutory authority.

---