Alternative statutory remedy bars writ relief in tax matters absent clear jurisdictional error or palpable injustice.

In tax matters, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily declined where an effective statutory appeal is available. Allegations concerning limitation, service of notice, a non-speaking order, and breach of natural justice were treated as issues the appellate authority could examine, and no clear jurisdictional error or palpable injustice was shown to justify bypassing the alternate remedy. The writ petition was therefore not entertained, and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appellate process.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the assessment order should be entertained despite the availability of an efficacious statutory appeal, and whether the pleaded procedural and natural justice grounds justified bypassing the appellate remedy.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the rule that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily not exercised when an effective alternative remedy exists, especially in tax matters. The asserted grounds, including limitation, service of notice, alleged non-speaking order, and breach of natural justice, were held to be matters that the appellate authority could examine. No serious jurisdictional error or circumstance causing palpable injustice was shown to warrant departure from the normal rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appellate remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: In tax matters, the High Court will ordinarily decline writ relief where an effective statutory appeal is available, unless a clear jurisdictional error or palpable injustice is demonstrated.

---