Defective C forms and alternate remedy principles bar writ interference with reassessment where correction opportunity was not used.

Reassessment treating disputed C forms as invalid was upheld because the dealer had been put on notice of the defects and given an opportunity to cure them, but did not file corrected forms or timely clarification before completion of the assessment. On those facts, no breach of natural justice or other basis was shown to disturb the reassessment. The writ petition was also held not maintainable because the statute provided an efficacious appellate remedy, and no exceptional ground justified bypassing that alternate forum. The reassessment therefore stood, and the writ challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether reassessment rejecting the disputed C forms and treating the sales as sales to unregistered dealers was liable to be interfered with on the ground of breach of natural justice or subsequent rectification of defects. (ii) Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an appellate remedy under the statute.

Issue (i): Whether reassessment rejecting the disputed C forms and treating the sales as sales to unregistered dealers was liable to be interfered with on the ground of breach of natural justice or subsequent rectification of defects.

Analysis: The assessee had been issued a show-cause notice specifically identifying the defects in the C forms and was given an opportunity to cure them. However, the assessee did not furnish corrected forms or timely clarification before the reassessment was completed. The materials relied upon to explain or cure the defects were not placed before the assessing authority within the relevant time, and the reassessment was made after the opportunity had gone unutilized. In those circumstances, the factual basis for disturbing the reassessment was not made out.

Conclusion: The challenge to the reassessment on merits failed and the assessee was not entitled to relief on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an appellate remedy under the statute.

Analysis: The statutory scheme provided an alternate remedy by way of appeal, and the assessee approached the writ court directly against the reassessment order. No exceptional ground was made out to bypass the ordinary appellate mechanism.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable on this ground.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment was upheld and the writ petition was rejected without costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a dealer is given notice of defects in concessional forms and fails to avail the opportunity to rectify them before reassessment, and where an efficacious statutory appellate remedy exists, writ interference is unwarranted.

---