Writ remedy and fiscal liability require cogent material linking the person to the taxable business.

Alternative statutory remedy may not bar a writ petition where the foundational basis of fiscal liability is itself seriously disputed and the appellate remedy is not efficacious to test that basis. Liability in an assessment or demand notice cannot be fastened on a person merely on conjecture; there must be cogent material showing a rational connection between the person and the taxable business. Survey material that does not implicate the person, or that names others instead, cannot by itself justify treating that person as a partner or business operator. The text emphasises that unsupported liability demands and recovery action are vulnerable to quashing when the record lacks concrete linkage.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petitions were barred by the availability of an alternative statutory remedy; (ii) whether the assessment orders and demand notices could validly fasten liability on the appellant as a person connected with the business of M/s. Satpal & Co.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petitions were barred by the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

Analysis: The impugned liability was raised against the appellant on the footing that it was a partner or person carrying on the business of the assessee firm. The material placed on record indicated that the demand was substantial, the recovery process could be onerous, and the appellant's connection with the firm was itself seriously disputed. In such circumstances, the alternative appellate remedy was found to be neither efficacious nor adequate for testing the very basis of the liability fastened on the appellant.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not barred by alternative remedy.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment orders and demand notices could validly fasten liability on the appellant as a person connected with the business of M/s. Satpal & Co.

Analysis: The assessment order and the survey material did not disclose any concrete basis for treating the appellant as a partner or as a person carrying on the business of the firm. The survey report named other persons as appearing to be involved, but it did not implicate the appellant. The liability was therefore fixed without material, on conjectures, and without rational linkage between the appellant and the business of the firm. The Court also noted the implausibility of imputing such a scheme to a State undertaking on the record before it.

Conclusion: The assessment orders and demand notices could not validly fasten liability on the appellant and were liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The appellant succeeded, the liability fastened on it was set aside, and the impugned assessment and recovery notices were quashed insofar as they related to the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Liability under a fiscal assessment cannot be imposed on a person unless there is cogent material establishing the person's connection with the taxable business, and a writ court may bypass alternative remedy where the foundational basis of liability is unsupported and the remedy is ineffective in the facts of the case.

---