Jurisdictional excess in tax assessment can justify writ interference despite alternate remedy, with remand for fresh consideration.

Writ jurisdiction can be invoked despite an appellate remedy where the assessment is alleged to be without jurisdiction. The High Court noted that an objection based on alternative remedy does not bar interference when the taxing authority acts beyond territorial competence or assumes authority over turnovers and persons outside its jurisdiction. It also found that tax already paid had not been properly credited in the assessment. Because these defects went to the root of the assessment, the order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh disposal after personal hearing and in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an appellate remedy on the ground of lack of jurisdiction; (ii) whether the assessing authority had exceeded territorial jurisdiction and failed to give credit for tax already paid, warranting interference with the assessment and remand.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an appellate remedy on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

Analysis: The existence of an alternative remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction where the impugned action is without jurisdiction. The assessment was challenged as a case of assumed jurisdiction beyond legal limits, and the Court found that the objection based on alternative remedy could not stand where jurisdictional infirmity was established.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and the objection based on alternative remedy was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessing authority had exceeded territorial jurisdiction and failed to give credit for tax already paid, warranting interference with the assessment and remand.

Analysis: The assessment proceeded on turnovers that included transactions already subjected to Central Sales Tax and also covered entities beyond the territorial competence of the assessing officer after bifurcation. The Court found that tax already paid was not given due credit and that the authority had exercised jurisdiction in respect of persons and turnovers over which it had no authority. These defects went to the root of the assessment and made fresh consideration necessary.

Conclusion: The assessment order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh disposal after personal hearing and in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The impugned assessment could not be sustained in its present form because of jurisdictional overreach and non-consideration of tax already paid, but the controversy was left open for a fresh adjudication by the assessing authority.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court may interfere despite an alternate appellate remedy where the assessment suffers from lack of jurisdiction, including territorial excess and failure to account for tax already paid, and may set aside the order with a direction for fresh consideration.

---