Statutory appeal bars writ relief, while Tribunal rulings remain binding on subordinate tax authorities until set aside.

A writ petition under Article 226 is ordinarily not entertained where an effective statutory appeal on the same turnover issue is already pending, and the assessee must pursue that appellate remedy first. The commentary also states that the Tribunal's view remains binding on the Appellate Assistant Commissioner until it is set aside, and the mere filing of a tax case by the department does not stay the Tribunal's order. The subordinate appellate authority must therefore apply the Tribunal's legal view to the facts before it.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be entertained when a statutory appeal on the same turnover issue is pending. (ii) Whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is bound by the Tribunal's view until it is set aside, notwithstanding a tax case filed by the department.

Issue (i): Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be entertained when a statutory appeal on the same turnover issue is pending.

Analysis: The dispute arose out of assessment proceedings relating to turnover said to represent lending of cotton. Since the assessee had already invoked the statutory appellate remedy and that appeal was still pending, the writ jurisdiction was considered inappropriate for deciding the matter at that stage. The proper course was for the assessee to await the result of the statutory appeal.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained on this issue and the assessee was directed to pursue the statutory remedy.

Issue (ii): Whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is bound by the Tribunal's view until it is set aside, notwithstanding a tax case filed by the department.

Analysis: The Tribunal was held to be superior in the departmental hierarchy, and its orders were stated to be binding on the Appellate Assistant Commissioner so long as they remained unset aside. The filing of a tax case by the department was held not to operate as a stay of the Tribunal's order, and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was required to apply the Tribunal's legal view to the facts before him.

Conclusion: The Appellate Assistant Commissioner was bound to follow the Tribunal's view until it was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The petition was rejected because the assessee was required to pursue the statutory appeal, while the Tribunal's order continued to bind the subordinate appellate authority.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ remedy will ordinarily not be entertained where an effective statutory appeal is pending, and an order of the Tribunal continues to bind subordinate revenue authorities until it is set aside.

---