Non-speaking assessment orders and natural justice defects can justify writ relief despite an alternative statutory remedy.

Writ jurisdiction remains available despite an alternative statutory remedy where the challenged assessment is a non-speaking order, shows no application of mind, or raises jurisdictional and natural justice defects. The Rajasthan HC held that a computer-generated demand disallowing input tax credit, without reasons or disclosure of the basis for disallowance, was unsustainable because a quasi-judicial order with civil consequences must record reasons in writing. The assessment and resulting demand were quashed, while leaving the revenue free to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy; (ii) whether the assessment order creating demand by disallowing input tax credit was sustainable when it was computer-generated, unsupported by reasons, and passed without application of mind.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

Analysis: The existence of an alternative remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction where the impugned action suffers from violation of natural justice, is wholly without jurisdiction, or otherwise falls within recognised exceptions. The impugned order reflected no consideration of the basic facts or the grounds for disallowance, and the challenge was founded on a jurisdictional and procedural infirmity rather than a mere factual dispute.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and the objection based on alternative remedy was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment order creating demand by disallowing input tax credit was sustainable when it was computer-generated, unsupported by reasons, and passed without application of mind.

Analysis: A quasi-judicial order affecting civil consequences must disclose reasons in writing. A computer-generated computation without narration of the notice, the default, or the basis for disallowance amounts to a non-speaking order and fails the requirement of fairness, transparency, and judicial accountability. An assessment cannot validly create demand by disallowing input tax credit without recording the basis for such conclusion, particularly where the order is stated to be a deemed assessment under Section 23(1) while also making additions without a discernible foundation under Section 24.

Conclusion: The assessment order was unsustainable and was quashed.

Final Conclusion: The demand raised under the impugned assessment was set aside, while leaving the respondents free to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: An order having civil consequences must contain recorded reasons, and writ jurisdiction may be invoked despite an alternative remedy where the impugned action is a non-speaking order or violates natural justice.

---