Error of law apparent on the record can justify writ interference despite an available appeal where material facts were misstated.

A finding based on an obvious mistake about a pleaded material fact, or on non-application of mind, constitutes an error of law apparent on the face of the record and can justify certiorari. Here, the adjudicating authority wrongly proceeded on the basis that the assessee had admitted crushing limestone in its factory, although the reply specifically denied it and stated that the limestone was already crushed in the mines. The resulting duty liability finding was unsustainable and liable to be quashed. The existence of an alternative statutory appeal did not bar writ jurisdiction where the impugned order disclosed a patent error, and the matter was remitted for fresh determination after hearing the assessee.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the adjudication order suffered from an error of law apparent on the face of the record because it proceeded on a mistaken assumption that the assessee had not denied crushing limestone in its factory and thereby treated the process as manufacture; (ii) whether the existence of an alternative statutory appeal barred exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the adjudication order suffered from an error of law apparent on the face of the record because it proceeded on a mistaken assumption that the assessee had not denied crushing limestone in its factory and thereby treated the process as manufacture.

Analysis: A writ of certiorari lies where the inferior authority commits an error of jurisdiction or an error of law apparent on the face of the record. Such an error exists where a finding rests on an obvious mistake regarding a pleaded fact, on no evidence, or on total non-application of mind. The adjudicating authority treated the assessee as having admitted crushing limestone in the factory, although the show cause reply specifically asserted that the limestone was already crushed in the mines and that no crushing took place in the factory. The impugned finding, being founded on this mistaken premise, was vitiated by an apparent error and by non-application of mind.

Conclusion: The finding that the assessee crushed limestone in its factory and thereby became liable to duty could not be sustained and was liable to be quashed.

Issue (ii): Whether the existence of an alternative statutory appeal barred exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The existence of an appellate remedy is a rule of discretion and self-imposed restraint, not an absolute bar. Where the impugned order discloses a patent error or jurisdictional defect, the High Court may still interfere in writ jurisdiction. Since the order was vitiated by an apparent error on the face of the record, refusal of relief merely because an appeal was available was unwarranted.

Conclusion: The availability of an alternative remedy did not preclude exercise of writ jurisdiction in the facts of the case.

Final Conclusion: The impugned adjudication was set aside and the matter was sent back for fresh determination after hearing the assessee on the existing record.

Ratio Decidendi: A finding founded on an obvious mistake as to a pleaded material fact, amounting to non-application of mind, constitutes an error of law apparent on the face of the record and may be corrected in writ jurisdiction notwithstanding the availability of an alternative remedy.

---