Disputed facts and alternate appeal remedy justified refusal of writ relief against MVAT assessment and demand notices.

Writ jurisdiction was declined where the challenge to MVAT assessment orders and demand notices turned on disputed questions of fact, including service of notice, appearance before the assessing authority and merits of the assessments. The proper remedy was held to be the statutory appellate process, rather than examination of the factual controversies in writ proceedings. To avoid prejudice from delay, the appellate authority was directed to entertain appeals filed within the specified period and consider all contentions without rejecting them on limitation. Interim protection was continued against enforcement of the impugned demand notices until the appeals were decided.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions challenging the assessment orders and demand notices under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 should be entertained in view of disputed questions of fact and the availability of an efficacious appellate remedy.

Analysis: The petitions involved contested questions both on service of notice and appearance before the assessing authority, as well as objections on merits of the assessments. In such a situation, the appropriate course was to permit recourse to the statutory appeal remedy rather than exercise writ jurisdiction. To ensure that the petitioner was not prejudiced by the passage of time, the appellate authority was directed to entertain the appeals if filed within the specified period and to consider all contentions without rejecting them on limitation.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not entertained on merits and the petitioner was directed to pursue the appellate remedy, with interim protection against enforcement of the impugned demand notices until disposal of the appeals.

---