Writ jurisdiction declined where an appealable tax order existed and a post-inspection revision request lacked proved prior communication.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was declined where the challenged orders were appealable and no exceptional illegality was shown. The Court noted that the revision application was not duly established as having been communicated before inspection; the relied-upon communication was only an unacknowledged e-mail. As the revision request was made after inspection and after recoveries, it appeared to anticipate proceedings under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. In these circumstances, the writ petition was not entertained and was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging rejection of the application for revision of assessment was maintainable in view of the availability of an appealable order and whether the Court should interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The application for revision was not found to have been duly established as having been communicated before the inspection, and the communication relied on was an unacknowledged e-mail. The revision request was made after inspection and after recoveries, indicating that it was intended to anticipate proceedings under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. Since the impugned orders were appealable and no other illegality warranting extraordinary interference was shown, the Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained under Article 226 and was dismissed.

---