Alternate remedy and limitation under section 4A(2B) governed assessment and exemption-related writ challenges.

Where a statute provides a complete appellate remedy against an assessment order, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily not invoked to bypass that remedy. The article also states that, for amendment of an eligibility certificate under section 4A(2B), limitation runs from communication or receipt of the operative BIFR order, not its date of issuance. On that basis, an application computed from the date of receipt was within time, and rejection on a contrary view without proper hearing was contrary to law and natural justice, warranting set-aside and remand for fresh decision.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition could be entertained against the assessment order when a statutory appeal was available under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. (ii) Whether the application for amendment of the eligibility certificate under section 4A(2B) was within limitation, and whether rejection of that application without proper hearing could be sustained.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition could be entertained against the assessment order when a statutory appeal was available under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.

Analysis: The assessment challenge was one against an order for which the Act provided an appellate remedy. The court applied the rule that where a statute creates a right and also provides a complete mechanism for redress, the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should ordinarily not be invoked in bypass of that remedy. Since no challenge to the validity of the statutory provision was involved, the availability of the appeal was treated as an adequate alternative remedy.

Conclusion: The writ challenge to the assessment order was not entertained and was rejected on the ground of alternate remedy.

Issue (ii): Whether the application for amendment of the eligibility certificate under section 4A(2B) was within limitation, and whether rejection of that application without proper hearing could be sustained.

Analysis: The limitation under section 4A(2B) was held to run from the date on which the BIFR order was communicated to and received by the petitioner, not from the date of issuance of that order. On the admitted facts, the application was within time when computed from the date of receipt. The rejection of the application on the contrary basis was held to be contrary to law and also violative of the principles of natural justice, since the matter involved civil consequences and had been decided on a technical ground without proper opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: The rejection of the application under section 4A(2B) was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh decision after hearing the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The assessment challenge failed, but the challenge to the rejection of the exemption-related application succeeded, resulting in a partial allowance of the writ petition and remand of the application for reconsideration in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute provides a complete appellate remedy, writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not invoked to challenge an assessment order; and for limitation purposes, the relevant point is the date of communication or receipt of the operative order when the statute contemplates action by the affected party after knowledge of that order.

---