Writ jurisdiction and disputed facts: statutory appeal must be used where notice service is contested.

A writ petition challenging an assessment order was not entertained because the dispute hinged on factual questions about alleged non-service or fabrication of the notice for appearance, which were not suitable for writ adjudication. An efficacious statutory appeal against the assessment order was available, and the petitioner had not pursued it. The Court therefore declined to examine the merits in writ jurisdiction and directed the petitioner to avail the appellate remedy. The principle applied is that writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be used to bypass a statutory appeal where the controversy turns on disputed facts.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the assessment order was maintainable in view of the disputed question of fact regarding service of notice and the availability of the statutory appeal remedy.

Analysis: The challenge turned on the alleged non-service or fabrication of the notice issued for appearance. That question required factual determination and was not suitable for adjudication in writ proceedings. Since the statute provided an appeal against the assessment order and the petitioner had not availed that remedy, the Court declined to examine the merits in writ jurisdiction and relegated the petitioner to the appellate forum.

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

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory appeal is available and the controversy involves a disputed question of fact, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked to bypass the appellate remedy.

---