Writ jurisdiction barred by disputed facts and available statutory appeal in an import assessment dispute.

Writ jurisdiction was held inappropriate where the dispute depended on contested facts, including the nature of the import transaction, the status of the agents, the genuineness of documents, and alleged administrative influence on the assessing officer. The Court noted that these issues could not be resolved on the writ record, especially because the primary documents were not produced. It reiterated that writ relief is ordinarily declined when serious factual disputes exist and an efficacious statutory appeal is available. Allegations of denial of hearing and bias were not supported by cogent material, and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appeal remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the availability of an alternative statutory remedy when the controversy turned on disputed questions of fact and the petitioner alleged denial of hearing and administrative influence in the assessment.

Analysis: The relief sought required determination of several factual issues, including the true nature of the import transaction, the status of the agents, the genuineness of supporting documents, and whether any superior authority had influenced the assessing officer. Those questions could not be resolved on the writ record, particularly when the relevant primary documents were not produced. The Court reiterated that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not exercised where serious disputed questions of fact arise and an efficacious appellate remedy is available. The plea of violation of natural justice was not substantiated by cogent material, and the apprehension that the appellate authority would be biased was also unsupported by evidence.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appeal remedy.

---