Writ jurisdiction and statutory remedy: interference declined against cancellation of compounding tax permission and follow-on assessment action.

Writ interference was declined against cancellation of permission to pay tax at compounded rates and the consequential assessment proceedings because the competent authority had already exercised the statutory power and an effective statutory remedy was available. The petitioner's grievance was held to be one that should be pursued before the appropriate forum, and no exceptional ground for writ intervention was shown. The court therefore refused to entertain the challenge in writ jurisdiction, while leaving the petitioner free to pursue the statutory remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether interference was warranted in writ jurisdiction against the order cancelling the permission to pay tax at compounded rates and the consequential assessment proceedings.

Analysis: The permission to compound tax had already been considered by the competent authority and was subsequently cancelled under the statutory power available to the department. The petitioner's grievance against that order ought to have been pursued before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. In view of the lapse of time and the availability of the statutory remedy, the Court declined to exercise discretionary writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: Interference with Ext. P10 was declined and the challenge to the consequential proceedings was not entertained in writ jurisdiction, leaving the petitioner free to pursue the statutory remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: When an effective statutory remedy is available, the writ court may decline interference with an administrative order, particularly where the challenge is to a concluded statutory decision and no exceptional ground for writ intervention is shown.

---