Writ jurisdiction and alternative remedy limit challenges to tax notices and factual disputes over appellate hearing irregularities.

Tax notices under the Income-tax Act were stated to be challengeable through the statutory remedy, so writ relief was not to be invoked where an adequate alternative remedy existed. The request for return of account books was declined because retention was authorised and the retention period had been extended. The allegation that the first appellate hearing was conducted behind the petitioner's back was treated as a disputed question of fact and left to be urged before the ITAT, where the second appeal was pending.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to writ relief against the impugned assessment-related notices and the prayer for return of account books, and whether the High Court should enter into the factual dispute regarding alleged denial of hearing in the first appellate proceedings.

Analysis: The notices issued under the Income-tax Act were held to be challengeable in appropriate proceedings under the statutory remedy available to the petitioner. The prayer for return of account books was declined in view of the authorised retention period, which had been extended. The allegation that the first appeal was heard behind the petitioner's back involved a disputed question of fact and was left to be urged before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal where the second appeal was pending.

Conclusion: No writ relief was granted; the petitioner was held not entitled to the reliefs claimed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an adequate statutory remedy exists and the controversy involves a disputed question of fact, writ jurisdiction will not ordinarily be invoked to quash tax notices or decide such factual disputes.

---