Writ jurisdiction and alternative remedy: petition declined as statutory appeal or revision remained available against the penalty order.

Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 was declined because the petitioner had an efficacious statutory remedy by way of appeal or revision against the assessment penalty order. The Court applied the settled principle that writ relief should ordinarily not be invoked when the statute provides an adequate appellate or revisional mechanism. The impugned order was left to be challenged before the appropriate statutory authority, and the petitioner was permitted to pursue that remedy within the stipulated time for decision on merits in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition should be entertained when the petitioner had an available statutory remedy of appeal or revision against the assessment penalty order.

Analysis: The dispute was not examined on merits because the petitioner had an efficacious remedy under the statute. The Court applied the settled principle that writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 should ordinarily not be invoked where the statute itself provides a more satisfactory remedial mechanism. The impugned action was therefore left to be tested by the appropriate appellate or revisional authority, and the petitioner was granted liberty to pursue that remedy within the stipulated time, with the matter to be decided on merits in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained on merits and the petitioner was relegated to the available appeal or revision remedy.

---