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 a writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable against an assessment order under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 when an appellate remedy was available and the dispute involved factual controversies.
Analysis: The assessment challenged the computation of tax liability on works contract turnover and raised questions of fact. The ordinary rule is that writ jurisdiction is not exercised when the statute provides an effective alternative remedy, because statutory appeals should not be bypassed. Interference under Article 226 is reserved for exceptional cases involving lack of jurisdiction, excess of jurisdiction, or violation of natural justice. Where the controversy turns on factual appreciation, the proper course is to pursue the appellate remedy.
Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained and the petitioner was left to pursue the statutory appeal.
Final Conclusion: The assessment challenge was relegated to the appellate forum, with interim protective directions to preserve the petitioner's remedy and status quo pending appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition challenging an assessment order will ordinarily not be entertained when an effective statutory appeal is available and the dispute is primarily factual, unless exceptional grounds such as jurisdictional error or breach of natural justice are shown.