Writ interference in reassessment declined where disputed facts and statutory remedies made judicial intervention unwarranted.

Reassessment under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act was not open to writ interference where the assessee had been heard, the authority considered the material, and the jurisdictional facts were found to exist. The dispute depended on contested factual questions, including whether sales or purchases occurred within the State and whether assessment had escaped, and such issues are ordinarily not examined in writ jurisdiction. The availability of statutory remedies by appeal and reference further weighed against intervention, and no patent lack of jurisdiction was shown. Writ relief was therefore not justified against the reassessment proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 19(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act could be interfered with in writ jurisdiction despite the assessee having been heard and despite availability of alternative remedies under sections 38 and 44 of the Act.

Analysis: The taxing authority, after granting hearing and considering the material, affirmed reassessment and found the necessary jurisdictional facts to exist. The challenge turned on disputed facts relating to sale or purchase within the State and escapement of assessment, which are not ordinarily examined in writ jurisdiction. The existence of statutory remedies by appeal and reference also weighed against interference, and the case did not disclose a patent lack of jurisdiction warranting writ intervention.

Conclusion: Interference in writ jurisdiction was not justified, and the challenge to the reassessment proceedings failed.

---