Writ jurisdiction unavailable where statutory tax appeal remedy exists; omission of reasons alone insufficient to invoke extraordinary relief.

The note addresses the availability of extraordinary writ relief against income tax assessments where the statute provides a complete appellate machinery: when a fiscal statute supplies an effective remedy and no usurpation of jurisdiction or fatal irregularity is alleged, writ jurisdiction is inappropriate and must yield to the statutory appeal route; a taxpayer cannot pursue concurrent writ relief while a statutory appeal is pending; and omission of expanded reasons in an assessment order does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record absent a statutory requirement for reasoned findings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an application under Article 226 challenging an income tax assessment is maintainable where the relevant Income Tax Act provides a complete statutory machinery of appeal; (ii) Whether the petitioner, having preferred an appeal under the Income Tax Act, may concurrently pursue writ remedies in the High Court; (iii) Whether the assessment order contained an error apparent on the face of the record (specifically omission to record reasons) sufficient to warrant interference by writ.

Issue (i): Whether an application under Article 226 challenging an income tax assessment is maintainable where the relevant Income Tax Act provides a complete statutory machinery of appeal.

Analysis: The statutory scheme for income tax assessments provides a multi-tiered appeal mechanism culminating in opportunity for questions of law to be brought before the High Court. Where such a complete and effective remedy exists and there is no allegation of usurpation of jurisdiction, illegality or fatal irregularity in the exercise of statutory procedure, resort to extraordinary writ jurisdiction is not appropriate. Authorities applying the principle that statutory remedies supplied by a fiscal statute should be exhausted have been considered and applied.

Conclusion: Article 226 relief is not maintainable in the presence of a complete statutory remedy under the Income Tax Act; this issue is decided against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner, having preferred an appeal under the Income Tax Act, may concurrently pursue writ remedies in the High Court.

Analysis: Concurrent remedies do not permit simultaneous pursuit in circumstances where the statutory appeal route provides effective redress. The pendency of the statutory appeal means the assessment order remains subject to the appeal mechanism and the extraordinary writ remedy is not available as an alternative concurrent course to frustrate or bypass the statutory process.

Conclusion: The petitioner's concurrent pursuit of writ relief while an appeal is pending is not permissible; this issue is decided against the petitioner.

Issue (iii): Whether the assessment order contained an error apparent on the face of the record (specifically omission to record reasons) sufficient to warrant interference by writ.

Analysis: No statutory provision was identified that requires the assessing officer to set out detailed reasons or a reasoned judgment addressing pros and cons. The order records materials relied upon and states the conclusion and the head under which the sum is assessed. The absence of expanded discussion or detailed reasons does not amount to an error apparent on the face of the record warranting certiorari in the absence of a statutory requirement to supply such reasons.

Conclusion: The omission of detailed reasons in the assessment order does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record; this issue is decided against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The petition is dismissed because the Income Tax Act furnishes a complete and effective statutory remedy which the petitioner has availed by preferring an appeal, and no jurisdictional defect or error apparent on the face of the record has been demonstrated that would justify extraordinary writ relief under Article 226.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a fiscal statute provides a complete and effective appellate or remedial scheme and there is no usurpation of jurisdiction or fatal irregularity, extraordinary writ relief under Article 226 is not available to substitute or bypass the statutory remedy; absence of detailed reasons in an assessment order is not by itself an error apparent on the face of the record in the absence of a statutory requirement to furnish such reasons.

---