Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the distraint order should be entertained in view of disputed questions of fact and the availability of a statutory revision remedy.
Analysis: The relief sought depended on a factual determination whether the assessee-firm had been dissolved and whether the petitioner could be treated as a transferee of the business within the meaning of section 27 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Such questions required scrutiny of complex factual materials, which was not appropriate in writ proceedings. The petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory revisional remedy before the Deputy Commissioner, who was to decide the matter on merits without objection as to limitation if the revision was filed within the time granted.
Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained on merits and was dismissed, leaving the petitioner to work out the revisional remedy.
Final Conclusion: The decision rests on the principle that where the controversy turns on disputed facts and an effective statutory remedy is available, writ jurisdiction need not be exercised.
Ratio Decidendi: Writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be exercised to resolve complex disputed questions of fact when an adequate statutory revisional remedy is available.