Alternative statutory remedy bars writ interference where reassessment notices raise disputed facts and tax remedies remain available.

Writ petitions challenging reassessment notices under the Income-tax Act, 1961 were held not maintainable because an efficacious statutory remedy was available. The petitioners could file replies to the notices and, if reassessment orders were later passed, pursue the appellate remedies under the Act. As the controversy involved disputed questions of fact, the High Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction under article 226 and left the parties to the statutory framework.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions challenging notices issued under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were maintainable in view of the availability of an efficacious alternative statutory remedy.

Analysis: The petitions assailed reassessment notices on the ground that deductions allowed in earlier years were sought to be withdrawn. The Court held that the petitioners had an adequate remedy under the Act by filing replies to the notices and, if reassessment orders were passed, by pursuing the appellate remedies available under the statute. Since the matter involved disputed factual questions, it was not a fit case for interference under article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable and were dismissed, with the petitioners relegated to the statutory remedies under the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Final Conclusion: Judicial review under article 226 was declined because the petitioners were required to pursue the alternative remedies available under the taxing statute, particularly where disputed questions of fact arose.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory remedy exists and the controversy involves disputed facts, the High Court should ordinarily decline writ interference under article 226 and leave the parties to the remedies provided by the statute.

---