Statutory appellate remedy and brief assessment reasons limit writ interference in fiscal disputes where objections were considered.

In fiscal matters, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily not exercised when an effective statutory appellate remedy is available, unless a recognised exception such as lack of jurisdiction, vires, or a clear breach of natural justice is shown; on those facts, the writ petition was held not maintainable and the assessee was directed to pursue the statutory appeal. An assessment order is not invalid merely because its reasoning is brief if it shows that objections were considered and reasons were recorded for rejecting the claim; on the facts, the order was not treated as non-speaking or as violating natural justice.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ petition challenging the tax assessment was maintainable in view of the statutory appellate remedy; (ii) whether the assessment order was liable to be quashed as a non-speaking order violating natural justice.

Issue (i): whether the writ petition challenging the tax assessment was maintainable in view of the statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: The availability of an effective alternative remedy under the sales tax statute ordinarily restrains exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The rule is one of discretion and self-imposed limitation, especially in fiscal matters. Interference is generally justified only in exceptional situations such as lack of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, or a challenge to the vires of the statute. The case did not fall within those exceptions.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable on the ground of availability of an effective alternative appellate remedy, and the petitioner was required to pursue the statutory appeal.

Issue (ii): whether the assessment order was liable to be quashed as a non-speaking order violating natural justice.

Analysis: The order showed that the assessing authority considered the objections and recorded reasons for rejecting the claim of exemption on second sales. The Court held that the order was not totally bereft of reasons and that mere brevity of reasoning did not make it void or non-speaking. No violation of natural justice was established on the facts.

Conclusion: The assessment order was not liable to be quashed as a non-speaking order or as one passed in violation of natural justice.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the assessment failed, and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appellate remedy with liberty to seek condonation of delay.

Ratio Decidendi: In fiscal matters, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be exercised when an effective statutory appeal is available, unless a recognized exception such as lack of jurisdiction, vires challenge, or a clear breach of natural justice is shown; an assessment order is not rendered invalid merely because its reasoning is brief if it reflects consideration of the objections raised.

---