ORDER

Special leave granted.

2. The challenge by the appellant in writ petitions filed before the High Court was to the demand which was raised by the respondents on 1st September, 1998 and 5th February, 1999. The contention of the appellant was that this demand had been raised nearly 16 years after the amount had become due from the importer on whose behalf the appellant had been acting as an agent. He challenged the validity of this demand but the High Court dismissed the writ petitions on the ground that alternative remedy was available to the appellant.

3. Normally, the High Court ought not to interfere in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 when adequate alternative remedy is available, but in the special facts of this case when the demand was raised and the same had been challenged on the ground that it was barred by time and where the demand is nearly of 46 lakhs of rupees which will have to be deposited before any appeal can be filed, we are of the opinion that the High Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction and determined the questions which were raised in the writ petition on merits. In dealing with the contentions raised by the appellant, the High Court