Writ jurisdiction in tax matters is restrained where an effective statutory appeal exists and jurisdictional error is absent.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should ordinarily not be exercised in a tax matter where the statute provides an efficacious assessment and appellate mechanism; interference is justified only where the taxing action is without jurisdiction, so the writ petitions were not maintainable and the assessee was left to the statutory appeal. A notice under section 12(8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act was upheld because it disclosed the reopening basis, minor defects in the prescribed form did not vitiate it, and the assessee had participated after receiving time and particulars. Transfer of the assessment file and the ensuing assessment orders were not found to violate natural justice, disclose bias, or show non-application of mind, so that challenge also failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should be exercised in a tax matter where an alternative statutory remedy is available. (ii) Whether the notice issued under section 12(8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act was invalid for want of reasons, for alleged deficiency in the period granted, and for non-scoring of irrelevant portions in the prescribed form. (iii) Whether the transfer of the assessment file without separate hearing and the manner in which the assessment orders were made violated natural justice or showed bias and non-application of mind.

Issue (i): Whether writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should be exercised in a tax matter where an alternative statutory remedy is available.

Analysis: The statutory scheme provided a complete machinery of assessment, appeal, and further remedies. The existence of an efficacious appellate remedy was treated as a ground for judicial restraint in tax matters, and the High Court's writ power was held to be subject to self-imposed limitations. Interference was held to be justified only where the impugned action was without jurisdiction or beyond the competence of the taxing authority.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable on this ground, and the assessee was required to pursue the appellate forum.

Issue (ii): Whether the notice issued under section 12(8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act was invalid for want of reasons, for alleged deficiency in the period granted, and for non-scoring of irrelevant portions in the prescribed form.

Analysis: The notice disclosed reasons for reopening, and the statute did not require the reasons to be set out in the notice itself. Participation by the assessee in the proceedings showed that the basis of the notice was understood. Minor defects in the form, including failure to strike out irrelevant portions, were held not to vitiate the notice where the material particulars were otherwise stated. The record also showed that the assessee was given the relevant time and appeared pursuant to the notice.

Conclusion: The notice was held to be valid and the objections to it were rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the transfer of the assessment file without separate hearing and the manner in which the assessment orders were made violated natural justice or showed bias and non-application of mind.

Analysis: The transfer was treated as an administrative step within the authority's power, requiring prior approval which had been obtained. The assessee participated through its representative without objection and no prejudice was shown. The plea based on the Income-tax Act was considered inapposite. The allegation of departmental bias and lack of application of mind was not accepted on the facts.

Conclusion: The challenge on these grounds failed.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to entertain the writ petitions on merits as a tax challenge with an available statutory appeal, upheld the impugned notice and proceedings, and directed the assessee to pursue the appellate remedy with limited interim protection.

Ratio Decidendi: In tax matters, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked where the statute provides an efficacious appellate remedy, unless the impugned action is shown to be without jurisdiction.

---