Allowing the petition the Court held that   , alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to entertain the writ petition ; On facts the Court held that the noticees were given hardly a few days’ time to appear and respond. Therefore the process adopted by the respondents could not be said to be fair compliance with the principles of natural justice.  Court also held that  the primary co-operative societies had acted as business correspondents to pass on the cash benefit as mandated by the State Government. At least this part of the transactions between the petitioners and their member-societies would qualify for being exempted under the proviso to section 194N of the Act. The petitioner-banks could not have deducted 2 per cent. from the Pongal gift fund even if it had breached the ceiling limit of Rs. one crore. The orders failed to take note of this relevant aspect. Court  also observed that on the very face of it, the orders had been hastily and prematurely passed. The deductor cannot himself decide whether the sum withdrawn by the account-holder would not represent income in his hands. But the enquiry could have been held only after commencement of the assessment year and not in the previous year itself.  Court also observed that  when the enquiry was conducted, it was open to the noticees, who were to be treated as assessees in default to place materials before the Assessing Officer to show that the amounts received by the recipients did not represent income at their hands. The proceedings and orders were not valid. Accordingly the petition was allowed .( AY.2020-21)