Pending statutory appeals bar writ interference in assessment and penalty disputes, including natural justice and evidence challenges.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was declined because effective statutory appeals against the assessment and penalty orders were already pending, and the appellate authority could consider all grounds, including natural justice objections and the alleged non-existence of the foundational document. The Court therefore refused to examine the merits of the assessment in writ proceedings and left the challenge to secondary evidence to the appellate forum. It also held that the pendency of criminal prosecution did not justify present interference, as available defences could be raised before the competent criminal court. The petition was rejected, with the petitioner directed to pursue statutory and other appropriate remedies.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was entertainable when statutory appeals against the assessment and penalty orders were already pending. (ii) Whether the Court should interfere on the ground that the assessment was founded on a document said to have been supplied only as secondary evidence and whether the alleged pendency of criminal prosecution warranted interference at this stage.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was entertainable when statutory appeals against the assessment and penalty orders were already pending.

Analysis: The assessment order and the penalty order had each been carried in appeal. The Court held that the petitioner had an effective statutory remedy and that the Appellate Authority could examine all grounds permissible in law, including the alleged breach of the principles of natural justice and the challenge based on the alleged non-existence of the foundational document. In such circumstances, the writ jurisdiction was not to be invoked.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertainable and no interference was called for.

Issue (ii): Whether the Court should interfere on the ground that the assessment was founded on a document said to have been supplied only as secondary evidence and whether the alleged pendency of criminal prosecution warranted interference at this stage.

Analysis: The Court declined to examine the merits of the assessment and penalty challenges in writ proceedings, holding that those contentions could be urged before the appellate forum. It also held that the launch of criminal prosecution did not justify present interference, as the petitioner could raise all available defences before the competent criminal court if and when required.

Conclusion: No writ relief was granted on these grounds.

Final Conclusion: The petition was rejected in exercise of writ jurisdiction because the statutory appellate remedy was available and pending, leaving the petitioner to pursue all substantive and procedural objections before the appellate and other competent fora.

Ratio Decidendi: Where effective statutory appeals are pending, the High Court ordinarily will not entertain a writ petition to challenge assessment or penalty orders, and all objections including those based on natural justice may be pursued before the appellate authority.

---