Writ jurisdiction and alternative remedy bar: disputed facts in assessment challenges should be tested in statutory appeal, not writ.

Writ jurisdiction was held inappropriate where the challenge to an assessment order turned on disputed factual questions, including whether the purchasing dealer had exhausted the exemption ceiling before the assessment year and whether the eligibility certificate had been issued or acted upon consistently with the governing scheme. The Court noted that such issues could not be satisfactorily resolved on writ scrutiny and that an alternative statutory appeal was available to examine the factual and legal questions after hearing both sides. The writ petition was therefore not entertained, and the petitioner was left to pursue the appellate remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the assessment order was maintainable when the controversy turned on disputed questions of fact and a statutory appeal was available.

Analysis: The challenge to the assessment depended on factual determinations, including whether the purchasing dealer had exhausted the exemption ceiling before the assessment year and whether the eligibility certificate had been issued or acted upon contrary to the governing scheme. The Court held that such disputed factual questions could not be satisfactorily adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. It also noted that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy by way of appeal against the assessment order, with the appellate forum being the proper authority to examine the factual and legal issues after hearing the parties.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained and was dismissed, leaving the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal remedy.

---