Alternative statutory remedy bars writ review of tax assessments, though premature recovery notices and bank attachments may be quashed.

Writ jurisdiction was held inappropriate for challenging the tax assessment because an efficacious statutory revision remedy was available and the dispute involved factual questions better left to the departmental authorities. The assessment orders were therefore not interfered with, and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory forum. By contrast, the recovery demand notices and bank account attachments were quashed because the statutory protection and the limited period remaining after service of the appellate order made immediate coercive action premature. Liberty was reserved to proceed in accordance with law after expiry of the statutory period.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessment orders should be examined in writ jurisdiction when an alternative statutory remedy of revision was available. (ii) Whether the recovery demand notices and attachment of bank accounts were liable to be quashed in view of the statutory rules and the limited period remaining after service of the appellate order.

Issue (i): Whether the assessment orders should be examined in writ jurisdiction when an alternative statutory remedy of revision was available.

Analysis: The challenge to the assessment orders was one that could be pursued under the relevant taxing statute by way of revision. The matter involved factual questions, including whether the goods had been sent outside the local area, and such questions were better left to the departmental authorities. The availability of an efficacious statutory remedy justified restraint in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The assessment orders were not interfered with, and the petitioner was relegated to the remedy available under the statute.

Issue (ii): Whether the recovery demand notices and attachment of bank accounts were liable to be quashed in view of the statutory rules and the limited period remaining after service of the appellate order.

Analysis: The Court noted the statutory protection regarding stay and the period available after service of the appellate order. Since only a small period remained, examination of the validity of the notices was found unnecessary at that stage. The attachment orders were also treated as unproductive because the bank balances were negligible, making the coercive steps ineffective.

Conclusion: The demand notices and attachment orders were quashed, with liberty to proceed in accordance with law after expiry of the statutory period.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded only in part, with coercive recovery measures set aside while the assessment challenge was left to be pursued before the statutory forum.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an effective statutory remedy exists for challenging a tax assessment and the dispute turns on factual questions, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked, though coercive recovery action may still be restrained if it is premature or otherwise unsupported by law.

---