Writ jurisdiction cannot replace statutory appeal in sales tax assessment disputes when pre-deposit and appellate remedies remain available.

Writ interference under Article 226 was held unwarranted against assessment and appellate orders under the Tripura Sales Tax Act where the statutory appeal under section 20(1) was available and had been invoked. The assessment under section 9(4) was not shown to be without jurisdiction, and questions on the correctness of the assessment, adequacy of materials, and limitation were treated as matters for the appellate authority, not for writ review. The Court also noted that writ jurisdiction is supervisory, not appellate, and the assessee appeared to be avoiding the statutory pre-deposit requirement. The challenge to the assessment and consequential orders therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the assessment and appellate orders passed under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976, when statutory appeals were still pending and the assessee had not complied with the pre-deposit requirement.

Analysis: The assessment was made under section 9(4) of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976, and the statutory appellate remedy under section 20(1) remained available and was in fact invoked. The impugned assessment was not shown to be without jurisdiction. The Court emphasised that writ jurisdiction is supervisory and not appellate, and that disputed questions relating to the correctness of the assessment, the sufficiency of the materials relied upon, and limitation were matters for the appellate authority. In the circumstances, interference under Article 226 was not warranted, particularly when the petitioner appeared to be attempting to avoid the statutory pre-deposit condition.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not fit for interference under Article 226 and the challenge to the assessment and consequential orders failed.

---