Disputed assessment dates and statutory appeal remedy led the court to decline writ quashing and grant interim recovery protection.

Assessment limitation under the Orissa Sales Tax Act could not be conclusively decided on the writ record because the order-sheet and assessment record were irregularly maintained, the date of assessment appeared interpolated, and the delay in issuing and serving the order and demand notice remained unexplained. On that factual footing, the court declined to quash the assessment outright. It also held that, where the validity and date of the assessment turned on disputed questions of fact and an efficacious statutory first appeal was available, writ relief should be refused in favour of the appellate remedy. The petitioner was therefore relegated to the first appeal, with recovery kept in abeyance until disposal of that appeal.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the assessment order was liable to be quashed as being passed beyond the statutory period of limitation under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947; (ii) whether the writ petition should be entertained where the validity and date of the assessment order turned on disputed questions of fact and the assessee had an appellate remedy.

Issue (i): whether the assessment order was liable to be quashed as being passed beyond the statutory period of limitation under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947.

Analysis: The assessment record and order-sheet entries were found to be maintained in an irregular manner and on plain papers, with interpolation in the date of the assessment order and unexplained delay in issuance and service of the order and demand notice. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation from the revenue, the factual position as to the exact date of completion of assessment remained doubtful.

Conclusion: The limitation issue could not be conclusively resolved on the writ record in favour of quashing the assessment outright.

Issue (ii): whether the writ petition should be entertained where the validity and date of the assessment order turned on disputed questions of fact and the assessee had an appellate remedy.

Analysis: As the matter involved disputed questions of fact requiring a thorough probe and the petitioner had an efficacious first appellate remedy, the Court held that the proper course was to direct the petitioner to approach the first appellate authority. Protection was granted by keeping recovery in abeyance till the appeal was decided.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not granted final relief on merits and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appeal remedy.

Final Conclusion: The assessment was not quashed in writ jurisdiction, but the petitioner was given liberty to pursue the first appeal with interim protection against recovery until disposal of that appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the validity of an assessment depends on disputed factual questions and the assessee has an available statutory appeal, writ relief may be declined in favour of relegating the assessee to the appellate remedy, with interim protection where justified.

---