Writ jurisdiction over time-barred reassessment notice upheld where alternate remedy could not cure lack of jurisdiction.

A writ petition was held maintainable where the reassessment notice was issued beyond the prescribed limitation period and the challenge went to the root of jurisdiction. The existence of an alternate statutory remedy did not bar Article 226 review because the jurisdictional objection had been raised before the Assessing Officer and remained unanswered. The court treated the alternate-remedy rule as discretionary, not absolute, and held that it yields where proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction. The reassessment notice under section 148 and the consequential assessment order were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an alternate statutory remedy when the reassessment notice was asserted to be time-barred and without jurisdiction; and whether the notice under section 148 and the consequential assessment order were liable to be quashed.

Analysis: The impugned reassessment was founded on a notice issued beyond the prescribed limitation period. A jurisdictional objection on this very ground had been raised before the Assessing Officer but was not addressed. In such circumstances, the existence of an appellate remedy did not bar exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226, because the challenge went to the root of the authority's power to initiate proceedings. The availability of an alternate remedy is a rule of discretion, not an absolute bar, and it yields where the proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable, and the reassessment notice as well as the consequential assessment order were quashed.

---