Writ jurisdiction is normally declined where VAT disputes turn on factual questions and a statutory appeal remedy is available.

Writ petitions challenging revisional and appellate orders under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act were held unsuitable for Article 226 intervention because the dispute depended on factual questions, including whether crusher machinery qualified as capital goods used in manufacture. The Court noted that the assessment and appellate authorities had already examined the dealer's claim, and that an efficacious statutory appeal lay to the Tribunal under Section 58. In the absence of any pleaded violation of natural justice or arbitrariness, the writ remedy was declined and the assessee was directed to pursue the statutory appellate route.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions challenging the revisional and appellate orders under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 were maintainable in view of the statutory appeal remedy under Section 58, and whether the dispute raised only questions of fact requiring adjudication by the Tribunal.

Analysis: The assessment and appellate authorities had already considered the dealer's claim that the crusher machinery was capital goods used in manufacture. The Court found that the controversy turned on factual determination as to whether the activity amounted to manufacture and whether the machinery fell within the definition of capital goods. Since the statute provided an efficacious appellate remedy before the Tribunal, and no case of violation of natural justice or arbitrariness was made out, the Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not entertained and were dismissed, leaving the assessee to pursue the statutory appeal remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the dispute involves pure questions of fact and an effective statutory appellate remedy is available, writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be exercised.

---