Statutory appeal bars writ review of an assessment order, while interim protection against recovery continues pending disposal.

Where an effective statutory appeal against an assessment order has already been filed under Section 246A of the Income-tax Act, writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not exercised to examine the merits of the assessment, demand or penalty notices. The court declined to entertain the merits challenge and left the assessee to pursue the pending appeal. As the appeal remained pending, interim restraint against coercive recovery was continued to avoid prejudice, and the appellate authority was directed to dispose of the appeal expeditiously within a fixed period.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a writ petition challenging an assessment order was maintainable when a statutory appeal was available and had already been filed; (ii) whether interim protection against coercive recovery deserved continuation pending disposal of the appeal.

Issue (i): Whether a writ petition challenging an assessment order was maintainable when a statutory appeal was available and had already been filed.

Analysis: The petition assailed the assessment order and connected demand and penalty notices, but the assessee had already availed the appellate remedy under Section 246A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The ordinary rule of exhausting the statutory remedy before invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction was applied, and no merits were examined.

Conclusion: The writ court declined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction on the merits challenge, leaving the assessee to pursue the pending appeal.

Issue (ii): Whether interim protection against coercive recovery deserved continuation pending disposal of the appeal.

Analysis: Since the appeal was pending and had not been finally heard, continuation of the existing restraint was considered necessary to prevent prejudice to the assessee. The appellate authority was also directed to decide the appeal within a fixed period.

Conclusion: The restraint against coercive steps was continued until the appeal is decided, and the appeal was directed to be disposed of expeditiously.

Final Conclusion: The petition was not entertained on merits because the statutory appeal remedy was available and pending, but interim protection was continued and the appellate authority was directed to decide the appeal within four months.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an effective statutory appeal is available and already invoked, writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be exercised to test an assessment order, though interim protection may be continued to preserve the subject matter of the appeal.

---