Statutory alternative remedy bars writ interference, with coercive recovery deferred to allow appeal.

A writ challenge to a rectification order was declined because an efficacious statutory appeal was available under the Act. The High Court noted that the assessing authority had considered the earlier judgment cited by the petitioner and had chosen not to apply it, but any alleged error was to be pursued before the appellate authority under Section 34 rather than in writ proceedings. The writ petition was therefore not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed. Coercive recovery steps were deferred for a limited period so the petitioner could pursue the statutory appellate remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the petitioner's efficacious alternative remedy before the appellate authority under the Act.

Analysis: The petitioner sought to challenge a rectification order passed by the assessing authority. The Court noted that the authority had considered the earlier judgment relied on by the petitioner and had declined to apply it. Even if the impugned decision was alleged to be erroneous, the availability of an appellate remedy under Section 34 of the Act made the writ remedy inappropriate. The existence of a statutory forum for redress meant that the dispute should be taken before the appellate authority rather than examined in writ proceedings.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed in view of the efficacious alternative remedy.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner was left to pursue the statutory appellate remedy, and the Court protected that remedy for a limited period by directing deferment of coercive steps.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory appeal is available, the writ court will ordinarily decline interference and leave the party to pursue the alternative remedy.

---