Writ jurisdiction cannot decide disputed sales tax facts where an effective statutory appeal is available.

Writ jurisdiction is not the proper forum to decide reassessment challenges that turn on seriously disputed facts, especially where an efficacious statutory appeal is available. The article explains that the core controversy was whether timber sales were completed as local sales at the business premises or constituted inter-State sales under section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Because the record contained conflicting materials, including check-gate entries and competing factual versions on delivery and movement of goods, final determination required evidence appreciation and document interpretation. The petitions were therefore not maintainable for resolving the factual dispute, and the assessee had to pursue the appellate remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions challenging reassessment orders on the ground that the sales were intra-State and not inter-State could be entertained despite the availability of an alternative appellate remedy, when the controversy turned on disputed questions of fact.

Analysis: The assessment controversy depended on whether the timber transactions were completed as local sales at the business premises or were sales in the course of inter-State trade attracting tax under section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The materials on record were conflicting, including entries in the check-gate registers and the petitioners' version that delivery was given at the place of business and movement outside the State was at the purchasers' risk. Where the facts are seriously disputed and require appreciation of evidence and document interpretation, writ jurisdiction is not the proper forum for a final determination. The statutory appellate hierarchy under the sales tax law provided an efficacious remedy and was the appropriate channel for resolving the factual controversy.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable for deciding the disputed factual issue, and the petitioners were required to pursue the appellate remedy. The challenge to the assessment orders failed.

---