Statutory tax remedy and unresolved factual disputes bar Article 226 relief in writ proceedings.

Article 226 relief was treated as unavailable where the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947 provided an effective statutory reference remedy that the petitioners had not pursued. The text also notes that a turnover dispute raised for the first time in the High Court, involving accounts and factual determination not examined by the sales tax authorities, could not be entertained in writ jurisdiction. The governing principle stated is that an adequate statutory remedy must ordinarily be exhausted, and factual issues not investigated by the statutory forums are not fit for first-time adjudication in writ proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was maintainable when the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947 provided an effective statutory remedy by way of reference to the High Court; (ii) whether the turnover dispute raised for the first time in the High Court, being a question of fact not investigated by the sales tax authorities, could be entertained in writ jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was maintainable when the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947 provided an effective statutory remedy by way of reference to the High Court.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947 contained a specific machinery for challenging assessment orders, including a reference procedure under Section 25 and a further application under Section 25(2) if a reference was refused. The petitioners did not avail themselves of that remedy. Where an adequate statutory remedy exists and is not pursued, recourse to the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 is not available.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable on this ground and the contention was answered against the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether the turnover dispute raised for the first time in the High Court, being a question of fact not investigated by the sales tax authorities, could be entertained in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The factual plea regarding the alleged direct sales by the manufacturer was not raised before the assessing, appellate, or revisional authorities and had not been examined on the evidence. The dispute turned on accounts and factual determination, but the petitioners had failed to produce accounts or establish the factual basis before the statutory forums. A question of this nature cannot properly be determined for the first time in writ proceedings.

Conclusion: The factual challenge was not entertainable in the writ petition and the contention was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The application failed in limine as the petitioners neither exhausted the statutory remedy nor established a justiciable factual basis for interference under writ jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a fiscal statute provides an effective and specific appellate or reference remedy, and the dispute depends on facts not examined by the statutory authorities, the High Court will not exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to grant relief.

---