The personal hearing was fixed on a particular day . The AO was not available and therefore no hearing took place . Multiple telephone calls were made to the AO for personal hearing but no such hearing was materialized . The AO passed the  order determining the tax liability along with interest and penalty under the MVAT and CST Act. The respondent filed writ petition challenging the order on the ground that the order was beyond  the period of limitation  . High Court entertained the writ petition and quashed the assessment order and the demand notice . On appeal the Supreme Court held that when the statutory remedy is  available  High Court has seriously erred in entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the assessment order by passing the statutory remedies . Court also observed that  when there is an alternative remedy is available  , judicial prudence demands that the court refrains from exercising its jurisdiction under constitutional provisions . Accordingly the  order of High Court was set  aside and directed to prefer appeal remedy with in four weeks .   Referred  United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Ors ( 2010) 8SCC 110 , (CA No. 4956 of 2022 dt 20 -9 -2022 )