Writ jurisdiction is ordinarily unavailable where disputed facts exist and an effective statutory appeal remedy is available.

Where a challenge to a revisional order under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act turns on disputed questions of fact, including the nature of an input tax credit reversal entry and the factual basis for rejection of the claim, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked. In such circumstances, the statutory appeal mechanism is the appropriate remedy because it enables examination of the record and resolution of factual controversy. The petition was therefore not entertained, and the petitioner was directed to pursue the appellate remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition should be entertained when the dispute turns on factual questions and an appellate remedy is available under the statute.

Analysis: The challenge was directed against a revisional order under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, concerning the treatment of the petitioner's reversal of input tax credit. The controversy required examination of records and resolution of disputed factual matters, including the nature of the reversal entry and the factual basis on which the claim had been rejected. In such circumstances, the statutory appeal mechanism was the appropriate remedy, rather than exercise of writ jurisdiction.

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

Ratio Decidendi: Where the controversy raises disputed questions of fact and an effective statutory appeal is available, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked.

---