1. Petitioner has called in question the order dated 21st March, 2012 passed by respondent No. 2 forming annexure P5 to the writ petition and has sought its quashment on the grounds taken in the memo of writ petition. 2. Precisely, the case of the petitioner is that the respondents have made assessment of income tax for the year 2007-08 vide order dated 24.12.2009 and directed him to deposit the tax to the tune of Rs. 9,803.00. It is submitted by the petitioner that he complied with the said order and deposited the amount aforementioned. However, he received a show cause notice on 07.03.2012 issued by respondent No. 2 under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 requiring him to appear before the Commissioner of Income Tax by or before 12.03.2012 with respect to the assessments made by the competent authority for the year 2007-08. 3. Feeling aggrieved of the aforesaid action of the respondent No. 2, the petitioner had filed a writ petition (OWP No. 270/2012) and questioned the order therein. After considering the matter, it came to be disposed of on 14.03.2012 by directing that the petitioner would be given ten days' time to show cause. It is submitted that despite the above said direction, impugned order came to be passed on 21.03.2012 in terms of Section 263 of the Act and, accordingly, it is prayed that the same may be quashed. 4. It is contended that the impugned order is bereft of reasons and is erroneous, and prejudicial to the interests of the petitioner. It is further contended that respondent No. 2 has wrongly passed the assessment order, i.e., annexure PI to the writ petition; that respondents have not provided an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before making the impugned order, and, thus, the impugned order is violative of principles of natural justice. 5. Learned appearing counsel for the respondents, Mr. Javed Ahmad Ka woosa, has filed the reply on behalf of the respondents and resisted the writ petition. It is averred that the writ petition is not maintainable on the ground that alternate and efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner in terms of Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the averments made in the writ petition as also in the reply filed by the respondents. It is averred that the writ petition is not maintainable on the ground that alternate and efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner in terms of Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the averments made in the writ petition as also in the reply filed by the respondents. To settle the controversy in its right perspective, I deem it apposite to reproduce hereunder Section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961: "253 (1) Any assessee aggrieved by any of the following orders may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order: (a)....... (c) an order passed by a Commissioner under Section 12AA [ or under clause (vi) of sub-section 272 A] or an order passed by him under section 154 amending his order under section 263] [or any order passed by a Chief Commissioner or a Director General or a Direction under section 272A; (d)................. 7. While going through the provision of law aforementioned, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has efficacious, alternative remedy available to him provided by the Statute itself. The apex Court and this Court in series of judgments have held that when an efficacious and alternate remedy is available, the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court cannot be exercised and writ jurisdiction is not the remedy. Reference in this behalf may be made to the decisions of the Supreme Court in A.P. Foods v. S. Samuel, (2006) 5 SCC 469 ; U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. v. U. P. Rajya Setu Nigam, (2004) 4 SCC 268 ; Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamiekar Shantaram Wadke, (1976) 1 SCC 496 ; Rajasthan SRTC v. Krishna Kant, (1995) 5 SCC 75 ; Chandrakant Tukaram Nikam v. Municipal Corpn. of Ahmedabad, (2002) 2 SCC 542 ; Scooters India v. Vijai E. V. Eldred, (1998) 6 SCC 549 and Basant Kumar Sarkar v. Eagle Rolling Mills Ltd., (1964) 6 SCR 913 and the decisions of this Court in Executive Engineer v. Authority under Payment of wages Act 2007 (3) JKJ HC-431, (OWP No. 489/1999 decided on September 3, 2007) and Western Bus Service v. Assistant Labour Commissioner & ors, LPA No. 173/2007 decided on 16.10.2007. All these decisions reiterate the view that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not be entertained when the statutory remedy is available under the Act, unless exceptional circumstances are made out. 8. No doubt that an order passed without jurisdiction can be questioned through the medium of writ petition, but what is seen from the pleadings of the petitioner, he has questioned the impugned order on the grounds of non-application of mind. The principle above enunciated clearly shows that the petitioner has failed to carve out exceptional circumstances in order to invoke the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. 9. In the aforementioned backdrop and in my considered view, the writ petition is bereft of any reasons. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed along with CMP. Interim direction shall stand vacated. It is made clear that the period spent by the petitioner and the order passed by this Court today shall not come in his way for taking appropriate remedy, if so advised and if he so chooses.