Efficacious statutory remedy bars parallel writ jurisdiction where a reference application under income-tax law is available.

Where an assessee has already availed an efficacious statutory remedy under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, simultaneous invocation of Article 226 is not appropriate because writ jurisdiction is not a concurrent remedy where an adequate statutory avenue exists. The text states that the challenge to the assessment orders and the Tribunal's order could be pursued through the reference application already filed, and that this statutory path displaced parallel recourse to writ proceedings. The writ appeal was therefore found not to warrant interference and was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ appeal was maintainable when the assessee had an efficacious statutory remedy under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and whether jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could be invoked simultaneously.

Analysis: The challenge to the assessment orders and the Tribunal's order could be pursued through a reference application under section 256(1), which had already been availed of. The availability of that remedy meant that resort to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was not appropriate simultaneously, since writ jurisdiction is not a concurrent remedy where an adequate statutory remedy exists.

Conclusion: The writ appeal was held not to warrant interference and was dismissed.

---