Writ jurisdiction and disputed sales tax characterisation should yield to statutory appeal where competing State claims require fact finding.

Disputed sales tax questions involving movement of hot mix from Haryana to Delhi, and competing claims of inter-State versus intra-State sale, were treated as fact-sensitive matters better suited to the statutory appellate forum. Because the challenged assessment was in substance the Haryana assessment, the petitioner was directed to pursue the first appellate remedy under Haryana tax law and implead the Delhi Administration so both sides could be heard. The writ court declined to decide the tax merits in the first instance, leaving the transaction's character and resulting liability to be determined through the ordinary appellate process.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition should be entertained to decide the competing tax claims on the transaction itself, or whether the petitioner should be relegated to the statutory appellate remedy before the competent authority in Haryana with notice to the Delhi Administration.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the movement of hot mix from Haryana to Delhi constituted an inter-State sale or an intra-State sale, and on the resulting complaint of double taxation by two State authorities. The controversy involved factual aspects that required proper adjudication by the statutory appellate machinery rather than direct determination in writ jurisdiction. Since the assessment order challenged in substance was the Haryana assessment, the proper course was to prefer an appeal before the competent first appellate authority under the Haryana tax law and implead the Delhi Administration so that both States could present their cases. This would allow an effective fact-based determination of the nature of the transaction and the corresponding tax liability.

Conclusion: The writ court declined to decide the merits of the tax controversy itself and directed the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal remedy with the Delhi Administration impleaded, so that the issue could be adjudicated in the proper forum.

Final Conclusion: The petition was disposed of by channeling the dispute into the statutory appellate process, with interim protection maintained for a limited period and liberty reserved to the parties to pursue further remedies after adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the nature of a transaction for sales tax purposes depends on disputed factual questions and competing State claims, the writ court should ordinarily not undertake the initial determination and should instead require adjudication through the competent statutory appellate authority with all affected parties heard.

---