On a writ the assessee contended that  the order contending that the order of reassessment ought to have been passed within 60 days from June 8, 2014, i. e., on or before August 7, 2014 and that having been passed on October 24, 2014 it was barred by limitation. Dismissing the petition the Court held tha  six categories of cases, were clubbed together and heard by the High Court. The writ petition filed by the assessee was clubbed with the fourth category of cases, which were petitions challenging the speaking order where notices of reassessment were issued within fours years from the relevant assessment year where the original assessment orders had been passed under section 143(3) / 147 of the Act. Court held that  the writ petitions were not maintainable and all the issues involved were adjudicatory issues. Accordingly, all the writ petitions were dismissed. Consequently, the writ appeals filed by the Revenue against the interim orders were allowed and time was granted to the assessee to file statutory appeal before the appellate authority. Thus, the court did not examine the merits of each and every case, as the issues framed for consideration were purely questions of law. The Supreme Court observed that during the pendency of the appeal before it, stay of reassessment was granted, which was directed to be continued till the disposal of the writ petitions before the High Court. After the order was passed by the Supreme Court, the order of stay stood revived. The assessee having enjoyed the benefit of the interim order passed by the Supreme Court on December 8, 2016, restoring the position as on June 8, 2014, was not entitled to maintain a challenge to the reassessment on the ground of limitation. Court also held that   the remedy by way of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was not only an effective, but efficacious remedy. The assessee had to necessarily avail of the appellate remedy as against the order of reassessment dated October 24, 2014 and agitate all issues on the merits except the contentions with regard to the limitation which had been rejected by the court. (AY. 2007-08)