Writ jurisdiction cannot upset a rectification order when the alleged error turns on disputed facts and an alternative remedy exists.

A writ petition to quash a rebate-withdrawal rectification order was not maintainable where the alleged error depended on disputed questions of fact about whether dividends were paid from profits of the rebate year or from current profits. The Court treated the issue as requiring examination of accounts and factual inquiry over several years, which is unsuitable for determination under Article 226. The absence of a direct statutory appeal did not, by itself, justify writ interference, particularly because an alternative remedy under section 33-A(2) was available. The challenge to the rectification order therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order withdrawing rebate under section 35(10) of the Income-tax Act was liable to be quashed in writ jurisdiction on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record, notwithstanding the existence of disputed questions of fact and the absence of a direct appeal.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the dividends declared by the company were paid out of the profits of the year for which rebate had been allowed or out of current profits. Resolution of that question required examination of the company's accounts and a factual inquiry extending over several years. The High Court declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction because such disputed questions of fact are not ordinarily tried in a petition under article 226. The absence of a statutory appeal did not by itself justify interference, particularly when an alternative remedy under section 33-A(2) was available.

Conclusion: The order was not liable to be set aside in writ proceedings, and the challenge to the rectification order failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Certiorari will not ordinarily issue to correct a rectification order where the alleged error depends on disputed questions of fact requiring evidence, especially when an alternative statutory remedy is available.

---