Alternative remedy rule bars writ review where statutory appeal exists and no total lack of jurisdiction is shown.

A writ petition under Article 226 was held not maintainable where an efficacious statutory appeal against the order-in-original was available and no finding showed total lack of jurisdiction in the assessing officer. The order was passed in exercise of jurisdiction, so the High Court should not have bypassed the alternative remedy rule or examined the merits before the appellate remedy was first pursued. The judgment was therefore liable to be set aside, and the parties were left free to proceed with the statutory appeal in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India despite the availability of an efficacious statutory appeal against the order-in-original, in the absence of a finding of total lack of jurisdiction.

Analysis: The order-in-original was passed by the assessing officer in exercise of jurisdiction, and no specific finding was recorded that the officer lacked total jurisdiction. The writ petition was entertained and decided on merits without the writ petitioner first availing the statutory appellate remedy. In these circumstances, the High Court ought not to have bypassed the alternative remedy rule and entered into the merits of the dispute.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in the facts of the case, and the High Court's judgment was liable to be set aside. The respondents were left at liberty to pursue the statutory appeal in accordance with law.

---