Natural justice and alternate remedy principles bar writ interference with tax assessment absent proven prejudice or exceptional circumstances.

A tax assessment was not vitiated by breach of natural justice where the assessee received sufficient opportunity, the objections were considered on merits, and the assessment rested on cross-verification of purchase and sales data, vehicle interception, and admitted suppressions, not merely third-party statements. The refusal of cross-examination caused no demonstrated prejudice. Writ interference was also declined because the assessee's complaints on non-supply of materials and denial of cross-examination could be examined in the statutory appeal, and no exceptional circumstance justified bypassing the alternate remedy. The assessment order therefore remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessment order was vitiated for violation of natural justice by non-supply of relied upon materials and denial of opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. (ii) Whether interference in writ jurisdiction was warranted despite the availability of an appellate remedy.

Issue (i): Whether the assessment order was vitiated for violation of natural justice by non-supply of relied upon materials and denial of opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.

Analysis: The assessment order recorded that the petitioner had been given sufficient opportunity and that the objections were considered on merits. The materials forming the basis of the assessment were not confined to the statements of stock dealers alone, but also included cross-verification of purchase and sales data, interception of vehicles, and admitted suppressions. The request for cross-examination was treated as an attempt to prolong the proceedings, and the petitioner failed to demonstrate any actual prejudice caused by the refusal.

Conclusion: The assessment was not shown to be vitiated by breach of natural justice.

Issue (ii): Whether interference in writ jurisdiction was warranted despite the availability of an appellate remedy.

Analysis: The Court noted that objections regarding denial of cross-examination and non-furnishing of materials could be examined by the appellate authority. In view of the settled rule that writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily be invoked when an adequate and efficacious alternate remedy is available, no exceptional circumstance was found to justify interference at that stage.

Conclusion: Interference under writ jurisdiction was not warranted.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed and the assessment order was left undisturbed, with the petitioner relegated to the statutory appellate remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court will ordinarily decline interference against a tax assessment where the assessee has an effective appellate remedy and fails to show concrete prejudice from the alleged denial of cross-examination or non-supply of materials.

---