Writ jurisdiction cannot be used to decide disputed facts in exemption claims requiring evidence and factual determination.

A writ petition under Article 226 was held inappropriate where an assessee's exemption claim depended on disputed questions of fact about the processing activity and the use of power. The controversy was whether the assessee merely carried out colour fixation by steam or sodium silicate without power, or instead dyed cotton woven fabrics with the aid of power on a machine. Because resolution required evidence and factual determination, the High Court declined to entertain writ jurisdiction and dismissed the petition.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition could be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India where the assessee's entitlement to exemption depended on disputed questions of fact concerning the nature of the processing activity and the use of power.

Analysis: The petition sought quashing of the impugned order on the basis that the activity fell within an exemption notification. The dispute turned on whether the assessee was only carrying out colour fixation by passing steam or applying sodium silicate without the aid of power, or whether it was in fact dyeing cotton woven fabrics with the aid of power on a machine. The controversy was factual in nature and required determination of contested evidence, which is not appropriate for adjudication in writ proceedings under Article 226.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable for determination of the disputed factual issues and stood dismissed.

Final Conclusion: Relief under writ jurisdiction was declined because the exemption claim depended on unresolved factual disputes requiring evidence and factual adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition under Article 226 is not the proper remedy where the claimed tax exemption depends on disputed questions of fact requiring factual determination.

---