Alternative statutory remedy bars writ relief where the tax statute provides an effective appeal and no jurisdictional error is shown.

Service of notice under the Income-tax Act, 1922 was held sufficient where it was sent to the addresses furnished in the assessee's returns and affixed at places of business in the manner authorised for service of summons under the CPC; the revisional order was therefore not invalid for want of notice or hearing. The High Court was also held not to have been justified in entertaining a writ petition where the Act provided a complete statutory appeal, because certiorari is ordinarily refused when an efficacious alternative remedy exists unless a clear jurisdictional error or infringement of fundamental rights is shown. The challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the notice under section 33B was duly served and the assessee was given a sufficient opportunity of being heard before the revisional order was passed; (ii) whether the High Court should have entertained the writ petition when an adequate statutory appeal was available under the Income-tax Act, 1922.

Issue (i): Whether the notice under section 33B was duly served and the assessee was given a sufficient opportunity of being heard before the revisional order was passed.

Analysis: The notice was sent to addresses furnished by the assessee in his returns and was affixed at places where he was carrying on business. Service of notice under the Act could be effected in the manner of service of summons under the Code of Civil Procedure, and the steps taken were held sufficient. As to opportunity of hearing, the assessee did not seek further time or communicate with the Commissioner, and the record did not support the complaint that the statutory opportunity of being heard was denied.

Conclusion: The notice was properly served and the revisional order was not vitiated for want of adequate opportunity; this issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court should have entertained the writ petition when an adequate statutory appeal was available under the Income-tax Act, 1922.

Analysis: The Act provided a complete and self-contained remedy, including an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal on questions of fact and law. A writ of certiorari is discretionary and ordinarily will not be issued where an efficacious alternative remedy exists, unless a strong case of jurisdictional error or infringement of fundamental rights is shown. No such exceptional ground was made out.

Conclusion: The High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition; this issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The revisional order was upheld and the challenge failed because the statutory notice and hearing requirement was satisfied and the writ remedy was not maintainable in view of the adequate alternative appeal under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the taxing statute provides an effective statutory appellate remedy, the High Court should ordinarily refuse writ relief unless a clear jurisdictional error or violation of fundamental rights is shown, and service of notice effected in the manner authorised by the Act is sufficient to satisfy the opportunity of hearing requirement.

---