Writ jurisdiction despite alternate remedy where reassessment proceeded without effective opportunity to place statutory forms on record.

Writ jurisdiction may still be invoked despite an available appellate remedy where reassessment is completed without giving an effective opportunity to upload or place on record statutory Forms C and F, especially when those forms are material to taxable turnover. The court treated the absence of such opportunity as a defect going to the root of the assessment and rejected the alternative-remedy objection. It also held that pending rectification applications should be decided by the same Assessing Authority, which is the proper forum to examine the forms' genuineness and effect. The reassessment order was protected from enforcement until that decision, and transfer of the file was declined.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an appellate remedy, where the reassessment was completed without affording effective opportunity to place the statutory Forms C and F on the electronic portal; (ii) Whether the Assessing Authority should be directed to consider the pending rectification applications instead of transferring the proceedings to another Assessing Officer.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an appellate remedy, where the reassessment was completed without affording effective opportunity to place the statutory Forms C and F on the electronic portal.

Analysis: The reassessment order was passed before the statutory Forms C and F were uploaded on the portal. The forms had been submitted earlier in physical form but were not accepted, and their later upload was material to the determination of taxable turnover. Since the impugned assessment was made without adequate opportunity to place the forms on record, the matter involved a breach going to the root of the assessment and attracted the writ court's jurisdiction despite the alternative statutory remedy.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and the objection based on alternative remedy was rejected; the issue was answered in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the Assessing Authority should be directed to consider the pending rectification applications instead of transferring the proceedings to another Assessing Officer.

Analysis: The rectification applications were pending before the same Assessing Authority, and that authority was the proper forum to verify the genuineness and effect of the statutory forms. The request to transfer the matter was not treated as a reasonable course in the circumstances. The Court therefore directed a decision on the rectification applications in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner, and protected the petitioner by directing that the reassessment order not be acted upon until such decision.

Conclusion: The Assessing Authority was directed to decide the rectification applications expeditiously, and the transfer request was declined; the issue was answered in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings were concluded with directions requiring immediate consideration of rectification and interim protection against enforcement of the reassessment order, while refusing transfer of the file.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a reassessment is completed without effective opportunity to place material statutory forms relevant to tax liability, writ jurisdiction may be invoked notwithstanding an alternate appellate remedy, and the authority must first decide a pending rectification request that directly affects the assessment.

---