writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari. Such directions, orders or writs may be issued for the enforcement of fundamental rights or for any other purpose , Availability of an alternative remedy is one of such considerations which the High Court may take into account to refuse to exercise its jurisdiction, but this principle does not apply to the enforcement of fundamental rights either under Article 32 or under Article 226 of the Constitution.
In all other cases where no fundamental right is involved, it has been ruled that the High Court would not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 when an alternative, adequate, and efficacious legal remedy is available and the petitioner has not availed of the same before coming to the High Court. Of course,

The rule of exhaustion of a remedy before invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 has been characterised as a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule... The Income-tax Act is a code in itself as regards legal remedies too. Against impugned orders, petitioners have effective and comprehensive legal remedies by way of appeal under section 246(1)(i) of the Act, further second appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, a reference to the High Court and further appeal to the Supreme Court.