Writ jurisdiction despite alternative remedy: court allowed fresh opportunity on disputed purchase tax records and remitted the assessment.

A writ court may still intervene despite an available statutory appeal where the assessment is contrary to binding precedent and the alternative remedy would be futile. In this tax dispute, the court treated the challenge to the manufacturing-loss assessment as fit for interference and held that the assessee should not be denied a meaningful opportunity on the purchase-tax issue. It directed that the assessee be allowed to produce books of account and supporting records, subject to deposit of part of the demand, so the assessing authority could reconsider the disputed turnover omission. The appellate order was set aside and the matter remitted for limited reconsideration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ appeal could be entertained despite the availability of an alternative appellate remedy in the facts of the case; (ii) whether the assessee was entitled to an opportunity to produce books of accounts and records on the purchase tax issue and the assessment required reconsideration.

Issue (i): Whether the writ appeal could be entertained despite the availability of an alternative appellate remedy in the facts of the case.

Analysis: Though writ courts normally decline interference against an assessment order when an effective statutory appeal is available, that rule admits exceptions. The assessment on manufacturing loss was found to be contrary to binding precedent, and a uniform rate had been applied to invisible loss without regard to the nature of the manufacturing process. In such circumstances, the appellate remedy was treated as futile on that issue.

Conclusion: The availability of an alternative remedy did not bar interference, and the writ appeal was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee was entitled to an opportunity to produce books of accounts and records on the purchase tax issue and the assessment required reconsideration.

Analysis: After the assessee accepted liability on some items and relief was granted on others, the dispute narrowed to the purchase of raw skins turnover omission. The assessee asserted possession of books and proof, while the impugned order had been made without calling for them. The Court held that one further opportunity should be granted and that the assessee should be allowed to produce the records, subject to deposit of part of the demand, so that the Assessing Officer could reconsider the purchase tax issue.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to a further opportunity, and the matter was directed to be reconsidered by the Assessing Officer.

Final Conclusion: The appellate order was set aside, the assessment was kept in abeyance, and the matter was sent back for limited reconsideration on the purchase tax issue with an opportunity to produce records.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court may interfere notwithstanding an alternative statutory remedy where the assessment is contrary to binding precedent or the remedy is rendered futile, and principles of natural justice require a meaningful opportunity before a tax demand is finally sustained on disputed facts.

---