Alternative statutory remedy bars extraordinary jurisdiction where disputed facts require resolution by the tax authority.

A filing defect in not enclosing the impugned order was treated as procedural, so it did not by itself defeat maintainability and the amendment was read with the original petition. However, extraordinary jurisdiction was declined because an effective statutory appeal under the taxing law was available and the dispute turned on unresolved factual questions, including the commencement of commercial production. The Tribunal therefore held that the applicant should pursue the ordinary statutory remedy before the competent forum, and it did not decide the separate jurisdictional question under the Central Sales Tax order once non-entertainment followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petition/application could be entertained when the impugned order had not been filed with it. (ii) Whether the Tribunal should invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy and the presence of disputed questions of fact.

Issue (i): Whether the petition/application could be entertained when the impugned order had not been filed with it.

Analysis: The filing requirement was treated as procedural rather than jurisdictional. Since the grievance also arose from an action taken by the authority, the Tribunal held that the absence of the impugned order at the time of filing did not by itself bar admission. The defect was also sought to be cured by amendment, which was allowed to be read as part of the original petition.

Conclusion: The omission did not defeat maintainability on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal should invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy and the presence of disputed questions of fact.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that extraordinary jurisdiction under the governing Act was restricted by the requirement that the applicant ordinarily avail the remedies under the relevant taxing statute. The statutory appeal under the Sales Tax Act was considered effective and adequate, and there was no sufficient basis to bypass it. The matter also turned on a factual controversy as to the commencement of commercial production, which was better left to the assessing or appellate authority. On that basis, the Tribunal declined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction. The question regarding jurisdiction under the Central Sales Tax order was not decided because it was unnecessary once the petition was found not entertainable.

Conclusion: The Tribunal refused to entertain the application in extraordinary jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The application was not admitted, and the applicant was left to pursue the appropriate statutory remedy before the competent forum.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an effective statutory appeal is available, extraordinary jurisdiction should not ordinarily be invoked, especially when the dispute depends on unresolved questions of fact.

---