Alternative statutory remedy bars writ relief where disputed facts and no patent jurisdictional error are shown.

A writ petition challenging an assessment under Section 201 of the Income-tax Act was held not maintainable where the assessee had already invoked the statutory appellate remedy. The Court found no patent jurisdictional error and noted that the dispute turned on fact-intensive questions, including whether payments to advertising agencies constituted trade discount or commission and whether relevant material had been produced before the Assessing Officer. It also held that the petitioner could not bypass the pending appeal merely because some grounds were said to be unpressed in that forum. The writ petition was dismissed in view of the available and already availed alternative remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable when the assessee had already availed the statutory appeal against the assessment order and no patent jurisdictional error was shown.

Analysis: The impugned assessment under Section 201 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 involved disputed questions of fact, including whether the amounts paid to advertising agencies were trade discount or commission and whether the necessary material had been produced before the Assessing Officer. The Court found that the facts could not be treated as identical to the earlier decision relied upon by the petitioner and that no patent jurisdictional error was made out. Since a statutory appeal had already been filed and remained pending, the petitioner could not bypass that remedy merely because certain grounds were said to be not pressed in appeal.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed in view of the available and already availed alternative statutory remedy.

---