Writ jurisdiction despite alternative remedy: non-speaking tax orders and breach of natural justice made the demand unsustainable.

Alternative statutory remedy did not bar writ jurisdiction where the impugned tax action was non-speaking, arbitrary, perverse, or contrary to natural justice. The High Court held that the availability of a revisional remedy with limitation does not oust Article 226 where the authority fails to give reasons or fairly consider the assessee's documents. On the facts, the compounding notice, revisional order and consequential demand were unsustainable because the revisional authority merely reproduced objections and remitted the matter without merits review, and the detention-related action lacked reasoned consideration. The impugned orders were quashed and the amount collected at release was directed to be refunded.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of a statutory revisional remedy and the limitation attached to it; (ii) whether the compounding notice, the revisional order and the consequential demand were sustainable in law.

Issue (i): whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of a statutory revisional remedy and the limitation attached to it.

Analysis: The availability of an alternative remedy under the taxing statute does not create an absolute bar to the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court held that writ jurisdiction can still be invoked where the action of the authority is unreasonable, perverse, without jurisdiction, or vitiated by violation of natural justice. On the facts, the remedy suggested was not effective, because the impugned orders themselves suffered from want of reasons and unfairness.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and the assessee was entitled to invoke writ jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): whether the compounding notice, the revisional order and the consequential demand were sustainable in law.

Analysis: The revisional authority had merely reproduced the objections and remitted the matter without examining the merits or giving reasons. The detention and compounding action were also found to be non-speaking and arbitrary, with no consideration of the documents produced by the assessee. The Court treated this as perversity and a violation of the principles of natural justice. The demand based on such orders could not stand.

Conclusion: The compounding notice, revisional order and demand were unsustainable and liable to be set aside in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded in the writ appeal, the impugned orders were quashed, and refund of the amount collected at the time of release was directed.

Ratio Decidendi: Alternative statutory remedy does not oust writ jurisdiction where the impugned action is non-speaking, perverse, unreasonable, or in breach of natural justice, and such orders cannot sustain a tax demand.

---