Alternative statutory remedy bars writ intervention absent jurisdictional error or natural justice breach, court declines merits review.

Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 was declined because an effective and efficacious statutory appeal was available against the assessment order. The authority had issued notice, received a detailed reply and heard counsel, so no breach of natural justice or jurisdictional error was made out on the recorded facts. The Court also refrained from examining the merits of the liability challenge arising from purchase from the official liquidator, preserving the petitioner's appellate remedy. The writ petition was therefore dismissed, leaving the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India despite the availability of an effective statutory appeal against the assessment order.

Analysis: The assessment order was passed by the competent authority after issuance of notice, filing of a detailed reply, and hearing through counsel. The existence of an appellate remedy under the Act made the appeal an effective and efficacious alternative remedy. The recognised exceptions for direct writ interference, such as lack of jurisdiction or breach of natural justice, were not made out on the facts recorded. The challenge on liability arising from purchase from the official liquidator had already been considered by the assessing authority, and the Court declined to examine the merits so that the petitioner's appellate remedy would not be prejudiced.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in the face of the available statutory appeal and was dismissed, leaving the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an effective statutory appeal is available, writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be exercised to bypass that remedy unless a jurisdictional error or violation of natural justice is shown.

---