Natural justice can justify writ interference despite an alternate remedy when an ex parte assessment lacks hearing and reasons.

Writ jurisdiction may be invoked despite an alternative statutory remedy where an assessment order is ex facie bad in law, ex parte, or passed in breach of natural justice. The article states that inadequate opportunity of hearing and insufficient reasons can render both the assessment and consequential appellate order unsustainable, because orders carrying civil consequences must comply with fair hearing requirements. In such circumstances, the impugned orders may be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication after due hearing, with ancillary relief such as release of attachment or freezing also followable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ court could interfere notwithstanding the availability of an alternative statutory remedy when the impugned assessment order was alleged to be ex parte and violative of natural justice; (ii) Whether the assessment and consequential appellate orders were liable to be quashed for want of adequate hearing and reasons, with consequential directions for fresh adjudication and related reliefs.

Issue (i): Whether the writ court could interfere notwithstanding the availability of an alternative statutory remedy when the impugned assessment order was alleged to be ex parte and violative of natural justice.

Analysis: The existence of a statutory appellate remedy does not bar writ interference where the order is ex facie bad in law. A jurisdictional or procedural defect going to the root of the matter, especially violation of the principles of natural justice, justifies exercise of writ jurisdiction. The court found that no sufficient opportunity had been afforded before passing the order and that the matter could not be left to the alternative remedy in such circumstances.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and interference was justified in view of the breach of natural justice.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment and consequential appellate orders were liable to be quashed for want of adequate hearing and reasons, with consequential directions for fresh adjudication and related reliefs.

Analysis: The impugned assessment order was treated as ex parte and lacking sufficient reasons for determination of tax liability. Since the order entailed civil consequences and was passed without adequate opportunity of hearing, it could not stand. The appellate order, being founded on the same proceedings, also could not survive. The court accordingly set aside both orders, directed de-freezing/de-attaching of the bank account, accepted the deposit already made, required further deposit as recorded, and directed fresh consideration by the assessing authority after due hearing.

Conclusion: The assessment order and the appellate order were quashed, and the matter was remitted for fresh decision after affording adequate opportunity to the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The decision grants relief to the assessee by undoing the impugned tax and appellate orders, restoring the matter to the assessing authority for fresh adjudication on merits after compliance with natural justice.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court may interfere despite an available statutory remedy where the impugned tax order is ex parte, lacks adequate reasons, and is passed in breach of natural justice; such an order cannot be sustained and must be set aside for fresh adjudication after hearing.

---