Writ jurisdiction may be declined where disputed tax collection facts and an effective statutory appeal require appellate review.

The article explains that, after State reorganisation, the successor State may recover alleged tax arrears and be substituted in pending proceedings under the Reorganisation Act. It also notes that where the dispute concerns contested facts about whether luxury tax was actually collected, and an efficacious statutory appeal is available under the Luxuries Tax Act, writ jurisdiction may be declined in favour of the appellate remedy. Limitation objections cannot be considered in isolation where a higher court has granted liberty to proceed. The practical effect is that the taxpayer should pursue the statutory appeal while preserving its contentions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitioner should be relegated to the statutory appellate remedy instead of entertaining the writ petition on merits, having regard to the objections based on jurisdiction, limitation, and the nature of the impugned demand.

Analysis: The demand related to amounts allegedly collected as luxury tax and raised after the State reorganisation. Section 50 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 preserves the successor State's right to recover arrears of tax, and section 104 provides for substitution of the successor State in pending legal proceedings. The Court held that the successor authority could proceed notwithstanding bifurcation. The Court also held that the plea of limitation could not be examined by ignoring the Supreme Court's order granting liberty to proceed, and that the dispute involved factual questions as to whether tax had in fact been collected. Since section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Tax on Luxuries Act, 1987 covers collection of tax and the appellate remedy under section 11(1) remained available, the writ petition was not the appropriate forum for adjudication on those disputed facts.

Conclusion: The petitioner was relegated to the statutory appeal under section 11(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Tax on Luxuries Act, 1987, and interim protection was granted to enable that remedy to be pursued.

Final Conclusion: The writ court declined to decide the factual controversy in exercise of writ jurisdiction and directed the petitioner to work out the alternate statutory remedy while preserving the petitioner's contentions.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the dispute turns on contested facts as to collection of tax and an efficacious statutory appeal is available, writ jurisdiction may be declined in favour of the alternate appellate remedy, particularly when the successor State's authority to proceed is preserved by the reorganisation statute.

---