Writ interference in tax pre-assessment notices is limited where statutory objections and appeal remedies remain available.

In taxation matters, Article 226 interference against a pre-assessment notice is ordinarily unwarranted when the assessee has an effective statutory remedy to file objections before the assessing authority and pursue appeal. The clarification was stated to be binding on the assessing officer under section 28A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, but the assessee could still place material before the authority to seek a different view. The availability of an alternative remedy and the limited scope of writ intervention in fiscal assessments therefore weighed against judicial interference, and the writ petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 with a pre-assessment notice and a clarification issued under the sales tax law when the petitioner has an opportunity to submit objections and raise the matter in assessment or appeal.

Analysis: The clarification was issued at the instance of the petitioner and was binding on the assessing officer under section 28A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The Court held that the petitioner could still place material before the assessing authority to seek a different view, and that disputes arising out of taxation matters should ordinarily be pursued through the statutory process rather than by writ petition at the notice stage. The existence of an adequate alternative remedy and the limited scope of interference in fiscal assessments under Article 226 weighed against judicial intervention.

Conclusion: Interference was unwarranted, and the writ petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: In taxation matters, writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily be invoked against a show-cause or pre-assessment stage when the assessee has an effective statutory remedy and can contest the issue before the assessing authority or in appeal.

---