Writ jurisdiction is inappropriate for tax assessment disputes involving mixed questions of law and fact when an effective appeal exists.

Where a tax assessment dispute turns on mixed questions of law and fact, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should ordinarily not be invoked when the statute provides an effective appellate remedy. The document states that issues such as whether transactions amounted to sales required factual determination by the taxing authorities, and the High Court should not have examined them in writ proceedings. It also notes that objections to inclusion of excise duty in taxable turnover, including estoppel-based and rule-based arguments, were matters the appellate authority could consider on facts and law, and should therefore be raised in appeal against the assessment orders.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether writ jurisdiction should be invoked against assessment orders when the liability depends on mixed questions of law and fact and a statutory appeal is available. (ii) Whether the grievance regarding inclusion of excise duty in the taxable turnover should be pursued before the appellate authority rather than in writ proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether writ jurisdiction should be invoked against assessment orders when the liability depends on mixed questions of law and fact and a statutory appeal is available.

Analysis: The dispute as to whether the transactions amounted to sales required factual ascertainment by the fact-finding authorities under the taxing statute. Where the statute provides a regular appellate mechanism for determining facts as well as law, the High Court should ordinarily not examine the matter under Article 226. The existence of an efficacious statutory appeal made the writ petitions inappropriate.

Conclusion: The writ petitions ought not to have been entertained, and the appellant should have pursued the statutory appeal.

Issue (ii): Whether the grievance regarding inclusion of excise duty in the taxable turnover should be pursued before the appellate authority rather than in writ proceedings.

Analysis: The objection to inclusion of excise duty in the total turnover, including the plea based on estoppel and the relevant sales tax rule, also involved matters that the appellate authority was competent to examine on facts and law. Such objections were therefore more appropriately raised in appeal against the assessment orders.

Conclusion: The contention regarding excise duty was required to be urged before the appellate authority and not in writ proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The assessments were not interfered with in writ jurisdiction because the appellant had an adequate statutory remedy by appeal, and the appeals before the Court were therefore dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a tax dispute turns on mixed questions of law and fact and the statute provides an effective appellate remedy, writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily be used to challenge the assessment.

---