Writ jurisdiction and alternative statutory remedies prevent bypassing a sales tax assessment dispute over contested facts.

A writ petition under Article 226 was held not maintainable to challenge a sales tax assessment where the dispute turned on contested facts, including the place of sale, the character of delivery and whether the petitioner was a dealer. The court noted that these matters required factual determination by the taxing authorities and that the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 provided a complete appellate, revisional and reference mechanism under sections 20, 21 and 22. In the absence of any jurisdictional excess or error apparent on the record, the extraordinary writ jurisdiction could not be used to bypass the statutory remedies, and the challenge to the assessment failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable to challenge a sales tax assessment when the statute provided an effective appellate and revisional remedy and the challenge turned on disputed questions of fact.

Analysis: The petition assailed the assessment on multiple factual grounds, including the place of sale, the character of delivery, and whether the petitioner was a dealer. The objections raised by the State showed that these matters were seriously disputed and required determination by the taxing authorities in the first instance. The statutory scheme under sections 20, 21 and 22 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 provided a complete remedial machinery by way of appeal, revision and reference to the High Court. In these circumstances, the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 was not to be used to bypass the regular procedure, especially where no jurisdictional excess or error apparent on the face of the record was shown.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and the challenge to the assessment failed.

---