As per case facts, the Respondent filed preliminary objections to the maintainability of the Writ Petition, arguing that the Petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy under statutory provisions (appeals under ... the IT Act) which they failed to invoke. The Petitioner contended that the IT Act makes no specific provision for appeals against an Order under Section 148A(d) and that the re-assessment was made without jurisdiction due to a violation of the prescribed limitation period. They argued they were well within their rights to approach the High Court under Articles 226/227. The question arose whether the High Court should entertain a Writ Petition when an alternative statutory remedy is available, particularly when the petitioner claims jurisdictional errors and absence of a clear appeal provision for the specific order. Finally, the Court, considering the settled position that the availability of an alternative remedy does not absolutely bar the High Court from exercising its plenary and discretionary powers under Article 226, especially in cases involving fundamental rights, failure of natural justice, orders wholly without jurisdiction, or vires of an Act, rejected the preliminary objection. The Court found room for appeals against an order under Section 148A(d) through Section 246A(1)(b) of the IT Act, but emphasized the High Court's discretion in appropriate cases where legal questions predominate over factual disputes.