Writ maintainability in tax assessment disputes depends on alternative remedy and disputed facts on limitation, not mere knowledge.

A writ challenge to a trade tax assessment based on limitation under section 21(6) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act was found unsuitable for adjudication under writ jurisdiction because the limitation plea depended on disputed facts, including the date on which the stay-vacating order was received by the assessing authority. The court noted that the statutory requirement turns on receipt, not mere knowledge, and that the assessment record and connected documents would have to be examined to resolve that question. In fiscal matters, where an effective appellate remedy is available, writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not exercised, and no exception based on lack of jurisdiction, breach of natural justice, or vires was shown.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the assessment order was maintainable despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal, when the plea of limitation depended on disputed questions of fact.

Analysis: The assessment order raised the question of limitation under section 21(6) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, but the material on record did not establish when the order vacating the stay was received by the assessing authority. Since the statutory requirement turns on the date of receipt and not mere knowledge, determination of the limitation plea required resolution of disputed facts from the assessment record and connected documents. In fiscal matters, where an effective appellate remedy exists, writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not exercised, and the recognized exceptions of lack of jurisdiction, breach of natural justice, or challenge to vires were not made out.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in view of the alternative remedy of appeal, and the challenge to the assessment order was declined.

---