Natural justice and alternative remedy principles limited writ interference against revised tax assessment and penalty proceedings.

Revised assessment and penalty were sustained because no violation of natural justice was established: purchase particulars were supplied, a revised show-cause notice gave enhanced details and time to respond, and the assessee did not seek extension or file objections. The court treated the reliance on purchase bills, seller records and the assessee's own C-form and purchase statements as sufficient, and held that cross-examination principles on third-party material were inapplicable on these facts. Writ relief was also declined because an effective statutory appeal existed, the assessee had failed to comply with the pre-deposit requirement, and no gross injustice or palpable illegality was shown.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revised assessment and penalty were liable to be interfered with on the ground of violation of natural justice, including inadequate opportunity to object and denial of cross-examination. (ii) Whether the writ petition was maintainable notwithstanding the statutory appellate remedy and the failure to comply with the pre-deposit requirement.

Issue (i): Whether the revised assessment and penalty were liable to be interfered with on the ground of violation of natural justice, including inadequate opportunity to object and denial of cross-examination.

Analysis: The petitioner had requested purchase particulars, which were furnished, and a revised show-cause notice was thereafter issued with enhanced details and time to respond. The petitioner neither sought extension of time nor filed objections to the revised notice. The materials relied upon by the assessing authority were purchase bills and related records obtained from the seller, and the assessment was made after verification of the petitioner's own purchase statement, bills and C form details. The cases cited on cross-examination and disclosure of third-party materials were found inapplicable because the present matter did not arise from raid or vigilance material, but from verification of purchase records used to detect understated turnover.

Conclusion: No violation of natural justice was established, and the revised assessment was not liable to be set aside on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was maintainable notwithstanding the statutory appellate remedy and the failure to comply with the pre-deposit requirement.

Analysis: The petitioner had already invoked the statutory appeal, which was rejected for non-payment of the required pre-deposit. The Court held that the writ jurisdiction is available in cases of gross injustice or palpable illegality, but that principle did not assist the petitioner because no objection had been filed before the assessing authority and the impugned order could not be characterised as high-handed or manifestly illegal. In these circumstances, the existence of an alternative remedy and the petitioner's failure to satisfy the statutory condition for appeal weighed against interference under writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in the facts of the case, and interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was declined.

Final Conclusion: The assessment order was sustained, and the petitioner was left to pursue the statutory appeal by complying with the pre-deposit requirement.

Ratio Decidendi: Writ interference is ordinarily unwarranted where an assessee has an effective statutory appeal, has not availed the opportunity to object before the assessing authority, and cannot demonstrate gross injustice or palpable illegality in the assessment order.

---