Writ jurisdiction cannot bypass statutory tax appeals, though limited protective relief may issue pending proper consideration.

Where an assessment order remains operative and a statutory appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act is available, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 will not be used to bypass or review the tribunal process. The Karnataka High Court declined to quash the criminal prosecution or directly direct reassessment, holding that the substantive tax and criminal challenges had to be pursued through the statutory appellate remedy. It nevertheless recognised that the Official Liquidator should consider the petitioner's representation and that limited protective relief could be granted to prevent immediate prejudice pending such consideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition seeking quashing of the criminal prosecution and directions for reconsideration of the tax assessment and related representation was maintainable in the circumstances, and what relief, if any, could be granted to the petitioner.

Analysis: The petitioner, being the former Managing Director during the relevant financial year, was treated as a person responsible for the company's tax compliance and therefore had a connection with the assessment orders and the consequent prosecution. At the same time, the assessment orders remained operative, and the petitioner had already pursued statutory remedies. The proper course against the appellate and tribunal orders lay in an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The writ court declined to unsettle or review the tribunal order in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the Court noted that the Official Liquidator ought to have considered the petitioner's representation and that the petitioner should not be left remediless pending such consideration.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable only to a limited extent for protective and ancillary relief. The Court declined to grant the substantive prayer to quash the prosecution or directly order reassessment, and instead left the petitioner to pursue an appeal under Section 260A while directing consideration of the representation and granting interim protection against precipitative action.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner obtained limited relief in aid of pursuing the statutory appellate remedy, but the substantive tax and criminal challenges were not decided in his favour in these writ proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessment order remains in force and a statutory appellate remedy is available, writ jurisdiction will not be used to bypass or review the tribunal process, though limited protective directions may be issued to prevent immediate prejudice pending recourse to the proper remedy.

---