Assessee filed a writ petition challenging imposition of an excess surcharge and demand for Assessment Year 2022-23.  High Court held that since assessee had a statutory alternative remedy, there was no justification to entertain writ petition. On SLP the Court held that  for Assessment Year 2021-22, a similar surcharge issue was addressed, and High Court allowed writ petition with Revenue agreeing to remit amount.  Similarly, in current Assessment Year 2022-23 excess surcharge was also rectified, and amount was remitted.  However, during pendency of present proceedings, another demand notice was raised for Assessment Year 2023-24, with a surcharge computed at 37%. Revenue submitted that error occurred as CPC had not adopted a mechanism to delete excess calculations. Court held that  technological impediment cannot be a reason for harassing an assessee year after year and therefore, immediate steps must be taken by Revenue to upgrade software or take such other steps as might be necessary to ensure that such mistake did not occur in future.  For impugned assessment year dispute had already been resolved and amount was said to have been remitted. However, for assessment Year 2023-24, revenue should take immediate steps and communicate order of withdrawal of excess surcharge amount within six weeks from date of receipt of order and Central Board for Direct Taxes should also take necessary steps for rectifying software as issue might not be resolved by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. (AY. 2022-23,  2023-24)