Prescribed cess assessment methods cannot be replaced by balance-sheet computation; writ remedy remained available where no Tribunal existed.

Cess under the Textile Committee Rules, 1975 had to be assessed only through the prescribed Rule 8 methods when returns were not furnished or were incorrect; computation from the assessee's balance sheet was not authorised and the demand notices were quashed, while fresh action in accordance with law was left open. The objection that the writ petition was barred by an alternative appellate remedy also failed because the statutory Tribunal contemplated by Section 5A(7) had not been constituted, so no effective appeal forum was available.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the cess demand notices were sustainable when the Assessing Officer computed cess on the basis of the petitioner's balance sheet instead of the modes prescribed under Rule 8 of the Textile Committee Rules, 1975. (ii) Whether the writ petition was barred by the alternative remedy of appeal when no Tribunal had been constituted under the Textile Committee Act, 1963.

Issue (i): Whether the cess demand notices were sustainable when the Assessing Officer computed cess on the basis of the petitioner's balance sheet instead of the modes prescribed under Rule 8 of the Textile Committee Rules, 1975.

Analysis: Rule 4 required monthly returns, and Rule 8 permitted assessment, upon failure to furnish a return or upon an incorrect return, only on the basis of figures obtained from the Central Excise Department or on the basis of the average cess levied during the previous two quarters. The demand notices themselves proceeded on the footing that the petitioner had not furnished the prescribed returns, yet the assessment was made from the balance sheet. That method was not authorised by Rule 8.

Conclusion: The cess demand notices were unsustainable and were quashed, though fresh action in accordance with law was left open.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was barred by the alternative remedy of appeal when no Tribunal had been constituted under the Textile Committee Act, 1963.

Analysis: The statutory appeal under Section 5A(7) was to lie to a Tribunal, but the record showed that no Tribunal had yet been constituted. In the absence of the appellate forum contemplated by the Act, the alternative remedy objection could not be accepted.

Conclusion: The objection based on alternative remedy was overruled.

Final Conclusion: The demand notices were invalid because the cess was assessed by a method not permitted under the governing Rules, and the preliminary objection as to appeal failed for want of a constituted Tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a fiscal statute prescribes specific modes for assessing liability, the authority cannot adopt an unauthorised basis of computation, and an alternative appellate remedy is unavailable if the statutory appellate forum has not been constituted.

---