Natural justice and alternative remedy in income-tax reassessment: writ relief is generally avoided when statutory appeal is available.

In tax reassessment and assessment proceedings, a claim of breach of natural justice failed where notice under Section 148 was issued, the assessee filed replies, material was supplied, and submissions were considered before completion under Sections 142(1) and 143(3). The document also states that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should ordinarily not be invoked where an efficacious statutory appeal is available under Section 246A, so the assessee was left to pursue the appellate remedy instead of maintaining the writ petition.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment and assessment proceedings were vitiated for breach of principles of natural justice and denial of opportunity of hearing; (ii) whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory appellate remedy under the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether the reassessment and assessment proceedings were vitiated for breach of principles of natural justice and denial of opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: The record showed issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, filing of replies by the assessee, supply of material along with the notice, and consideration of the assessee's submissions, including the later reply on merits, before completion of assessment under Sections 142(1) and 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. On those facts, the grievance of denial of hearing was not accepted.

Conclusion: The assessment was not held to be vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice, and this contention failed against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory appellate remedy under the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: In tax matters, the ordinary rule is that the assessee should be relegated to the statutory remedy where an efficacious appeal is available. Since the assessment challenge could be pursued before the appellate authority under Section 246A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was not invoked.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained in view of the alternative statutory remedy, and the contention was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the assessment did not succeed, and the assessee was left to pursue the available appellate remedy under the statute.

Ratio Decidendi: In tax matters, where notice and replies are duly considered and an efficacious statutory appeal is available, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not be used to interfere with the assessment.

---