Dismissing the petition the Court held that since an effective alternative remedy was available the writ petition was not maintainable. The directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel were binding on the Assessing Officer but that in itself was not a sufficient ground to exercise jurisdiction under article 226. The assessee had the statutory remedy of filing an appeal under section 253 before the Tribunal against the order passed by the Assessing Officer giving effect to the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel under sub-section (5) to section 144C. The reasons given by the Dispute Resolution Panel for upholding the action of the Transfer Pricing Officer could not be analysed in writ jurisdiction and such reasonings would have to be tested before the appropriate forum. The factual background would have to be necessarily evaluated by the Assessing Officer while framing the assessment order. Every error of an authority is not open to judicial review merely by terming it a “jurisdictional error”, although it may, at a later stage, be set aside for being erroneous. (AY.2016-17)