MARKANDEYA KATJU, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS Writ Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 5. 11. 2003 in WP (C) No. 21/2003.

( 2 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

( 3 ) THE facts of the case have been set out in the judgment of the learned Single judge and, hence, we are not repeating the same except where necessary.

( 4 ) THE writ petition was filed against the impugned assessment order dated 17. 9. 2002 vide Annexure P-16 to the writ petition.

( 5 ) IT may be mentioned that against the aforesaid assessment order there is a right of appeal provided for under Section 169 of the Delhi Municipal corporation of Delhi Act, 1957 (for short "the Act" ).

( 6 ) IT is well settled that if there is an alternative remedy, ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained. No doubt, an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the entertaining of a writ petition, but since writ is a discretionary remedy, a writ petition is ordinarily not entertained if there is an alternative remedy. This principle applies with even greater force in tax matters where it has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that there shoul

Click Here to Read the rest of this document