Writ interference and disputed facts: Madras HC declined review of assessment orders, directing the taxpayer to appeal.

The Madras HC declined writ interference with assessment orders because the challenge depended on disputed factual questions, including whether option letters had actually been filed. It held that such disputes should be examined by the Appellate Authority, which was the proper fact-finding forum. On the objection relating to electronic filing of monthly returns, the Court noted that the returns were admittedly filed only after a delay of about three years and therefore refused to exercise writ discretion. All contentions were left open for consideration in appeal, and the petitioner was relegated to the appellate remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court should interfere with the assessment orders when the challenge involved disputed questions of fact and the petitioner had an appellate remedy.

Analysis: The challenge to the assessment orders turned, in part, on whether the option letters had in fact been filed, which was specifically disputed by the respondent as a matter of fact. The Court held that such a controversy could not be resolved in writ proceedings and that the Appellate Authority was the appropriate fact-finding forum. On the separate objection regarding electronic filing of monthly returns, the Court noted that the returns had admittedly been filed only after a delay of about three years, and therefore declined to exercise writ discretion. The Court also left all contentions open for examination in appeal.

Conclusion: The Court declined to interfere and relegated the petitioner to the appellate remedy.

---