The judgment established the principle that the existence of alternative remedies under the statute does not bar the issuance of a writ of certiorari when there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice and infringement of a fundamental right. The court emphasized the need for fair determination by quasi-judicial authorities and the adherence to the principles of natural justice.

1. The writ applicant is an /assessee to sales-tax. For the year 1961-62, monthly returns were submitted and tax was also paid by the petitioner in accordance with those returns. A consolidated return for the entire year showing the turnover correctly, it is claimed by the petitioner, was also sent. The respondent, the Sales-tax Officer then issued a notice dated 20-2-1963 in which it is stated:

"It is therefore proposed to reject your returns and the accounts produced in support of them and to complete the assessment to the best of my judgment."

The above communication is Ext. PI and the objection of the petitioner to Ext. PI is Ext. P2 dated 27-2-1963. On 5-7-1963, another communication, Ext. P4, was sent by the respondent stating that he proposes to complete the assessment for the year according to the best of his judgment by adding 10 per cent of the net taxable turnover as per the books of account as probable suppressions. This too was objected to by the petitioner by Ext. P5. But overruling his objections, the assessment order in question has been passed adding 10 per cent to the net turnover as computed by the assessing authority from the books of account of the assessee. The 10 per cent comes to Rs. 27,60,883-60. A copy of the assessment order is Ext. P6. It is this order, Ext. P6, that has been challenged in this writ application.

2. According to counsel for the petitioner, Ext. P6 evidences a capricious and arbitrary assessment without any material to support the conclusion and is the pure result of surmises and conjectures. He, therefore, prays that a writ be issued quashing the order, Ext. P6.

3. A preliminary objection has been raised that the petitioner has adequate alternative remedies under the statute and, therefore, this writ application should not be entertained. This, in fact, was the only argument that has been advanced by counsel on behalf of the Revenue. This question has, therefore to be examined. I shall refer to the facts relating to the assessment which, I consider necessary, for the determination of this issue.

4. Certain reasons have been given in Ext. PI for rejecting-the accounts and notwithstanding the explanation, Ext. P2, the accounts have been rejected. I will assume for the purpose of this proceeding under Art.226 of the Constitution (in fact it is not for me to assess the adequacy of the grounds for rejecting the accounts) that the accounts have been rightly rejected. The further question is as to whether the addition of 10 per cent of the net taxable turnover as per the books of account towards probable suppressions is arbitrary and capricious as contended by counsel for the petitioner. It is stated in Ext. P4 that such an addition is proposed because of the defects enumerated in Ext. PI. The defect mentioned in Para.3 of Ext. PI has been given up in Ext. P4. The remaining defects are:

(1) The turnover 'as per the returns and accounts' does not agree.

(2) The cash balance on certain dates mentioned in Ext. PI does not justify the loans taken by the petitioner from the persons mentioned in Ext. PI on the dates specified in Ext. PI.

(3) The secret account recovered from Messrs. Vasu and Janardhanan indicate purchases having been made on twelve occasions from the assessee. These do not find a place in the books of account of the assessee.

5. The petitioner contended that there is no discrepancy between the turnover as returned and as seen from his books of account. He gave detailed reasons for the loans taken on the various dates mentioned in Ext. PI. He further said that all his transactions are entered in his account books and that he had no dealings whatever with Messrs. Vasu and Janardhanan. There were, he contended, no sales effected by him on the several dates mentioned in Ext. PI to Messrs. Vasu and Janardhanan. He however pointed out that on ten out of the twelve dates mentioned in Ext. PI he had effected sales on a cash basis to different parties for the identical amounts mentione