Writ jurisdiction and alternate remedy principles permit intervention where natural justice is affected; reassessment was remanded for fresh hearing.

Article 226 writ jurisdiction is not barred by the mere availability of an alternate statutory remedy, and delay in filing beyond the appeal period does not create an absolute prohibition on consideration where unfairness, lack of jurisdiction, perversity, or breach of natural justice is shown. In the tax reassessment context, disputed defects requiring factual verification and records not called for by the authority justified fresh adjudication; the assessment on those items was therefore set aside and remanded for reconsideration after giving the assessee an opportunity to produce records and be heard.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was barred from consideration merely because an alternate statutory remedy was available and the writ was filed beyond the prescribed appeal period; (ii) Whether the assessment required interference and remand for fresh consideration on the disputed defects for want of adequate opportunity and production of records.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was barred from consideration merely because an alternate statutory remedy was available and the writ was filed beyond the prescribed appeal period.

Analysis: The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is wide, but it is exercised with self-imposed restraint where an effective alternate remedy exists. That principle does not create an absolute bar to entertaining a writ petition. Interference remains possible where the action of the statutory authority is unfair, unreasonable, perverse, without jurisdiction, or in violation of natural justice. The earlier view that there was a blanket prohibition on entertaining such writ petitions was therefore incorrect.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not barred by any absolute prohibition on account of alternate remedy or limitation, and the contrary view was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment required interference and remand for fresh consideration on the disputed defects for want of adequate opportunity and production of records.

Analysis: The reassessment was initiated under Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, and only certain defects were ultimately sustained. The disputed items turned on factual verification of records, and the authority had not called for the books of accounts before completing the assessment. In the circumstances, and to enable proper adjudication on merits, the assessee was entitled to place the relevant materials before the assessing authority and be heard afresh.

Conclusion: The assessment on the disputed items was set aside and the matter was remanded to the assessing authority for fresh consideration after giving the assessee an opportunity to produce records and be heard.

Final Conclusion: The appellant obtained relief against the impugned order, but the dispute on the surviving assessment issues was sent back for reconsideration in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: The existence of an alternate statutory remedy does not constitute an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction, and where a factual tax dispute has not been examined after affording a fair opportunity, the matter may be remanded for fresh adjudication on merits.

---