Statutory appellate remedy bars writ interference where tax objections, including limitation, can be decided on merits

Writ jurisdiction was declined in a tax dispute because an effective statutory appellate remedy was available under the Estate Duty Act and had already been invoked. The High Court held that objections to the assessment and demand notices, including limitation, could be raised before the appellate authority on merits, so interference under Article 226 was not warranted. The petition was therefore dismissed as not maintainable for writ relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition should be entertained despite the availability of an adequate appellate remedy under the Estate Duty Act.

Analysis: The challenge to the assessment and demand notices raised questions that could be urged before the statutory appellate authority. The petitioner had already filed an appeal and the same grounds were available there. In tax matters, the High Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction where the statutory authorities could consider the objections on merits, including the plea of limitation.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction and was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an effective statutory appellate remedy is available and has in fact been invoked, the High Court will ordinarily decline to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 to decide tax-related objections that can be examined by the appellate authority.

---