Classification of coconut oil for sales tax turned on disputed facts, so writ jurisdiction was not used first.

Classification of coconut oil for sales tax purposes depended on its actual use by consumers and market treatment in the State, making the dispute one of evidence rather than abstract law. The revenue bore the burden to show that the product fell within the higher-tax entry, and the writ court declined to conduct fact-finding on that basis. The challenge was therefore not decided on merits in writ jurisdiction and was left to be determined first by the statutory authority under the Bihar Finance Act, 1981, with liberty to return to court if necessary.

---

---

Issues: Whether the challenge to the notification reclassifying coconut oil for sales tax purposes could be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction, or whether the controversy required factual determination by the statutory authority.

Analysis: The classification of coconut oil depended on its actual use by consumers in the State. The burden lay on the revenue to establish that the product properly fell within the higher-tax entry, and this could not be determined as an abstract question of law. Since the issue turned on evidence regarding user and market practice, the writ court declined to undertake fact-finding. The matter was therefore left to be first decided by the appropriate authority under the Bihar Finance Act, 1981, with liberty to approach the Court again if necessary.

Conclusion: The challenge was not decided on merits in writ jurisdiction and was left to be considered first by the statutory authority.

Final Conclusion: The proceeding was concluded without a substantive pronouncement on the validity of the classification, and the parties were directed to pursue the statutory forum first.

Ratio Decidendi: Where classification depends on disputed factual questions of user and market treatment, and the revenue bears the burden of proof, writ jurisdiction will not ordinarily be used to decide the matter in the first instance.

---