Natural justice in reassessment justified writ relief and remand despite an alternate statutory remedy.

Writ jurisdiction was held available despite an alternate statutory remedy where the reassessment order allegedly failed to consider the dealer's objections and supporting material. The Court treated non-consideration of the manufacturing process, the nature of the goods, and the relevant documents as a breach of natural justice and held that relegating the petitioner to the statutory remedy was unwarranted. It also noted unexplained delay in completing the reassessment as contrary to the requirement of reasonable dispatch. The impugned assessment was set aside and remitted to the assessing authority for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner and examining the record.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an alternate statutory remedy when the assessment order allegedly ignored the dealer's objections and material facts; (ii) whether the impugned assessment order was vitiated for failure to consider the petitioner's case on the nature of the goods and for unexplained delay, justifying remand.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an alternate statutory remedy when the assessment order allegedly ignored the dealer's objections and material facts.

Analysis: The availability of an alternate remedy is a rule of discretion and not an absolute bar where the impugned action is said to suffer from violation of natural justice or absence of proper consideration. The assessment order was challenged on the footing that the assessing authority did not deal with the petitioner's specific contentions regarding processing of imported raw sugar into white sugar and the relevant documentary material. In such circumstances, relegating the petitioner to the statutory remedy was not warranted.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and the petitioner was not required to be driven to the alternate remedy.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned assessment order was vitiated for failure to consider the petitioner's case on the nature of the goods and for unexplained delay, justifying remand.

Analysis: The assessment order did not address the petitioner's objections on the manufacturing process and the character of the goods sold. The Court treated the omission as a failure to apply mind to the relevant facts and contentions, amounting to a breach of natural justice. The long delay in completing the reassessment proceedings was also noted as unexplained and contrary to the obligation to complete such proceedings within a reasonable time. On that basis, the assessment could not be sustained and required reconsideration after hearing the petitioner and examining the documents.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the assessing authority for fresh consideration on merits.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner obtained relief against the assessment order, but the substantive tax liability was left open for fresh adjudication by the assessing authority after affording an opportunity of hearing and considering the material on record.

Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment order that fails to consider the assessee's specific objections and relevant material, especially when accompanied by unexplained delay, is liable to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction and remitted for fresh decision despite the existence of an alternate statutory remedy.

---