Statutory appeal remedy prevails where cess liability turns on disputed facts about whether job-work dyeing amounts to manufacture.

A writ challenge to a cess demand was found inappropriate where the central issue was a disputed factual question whether bleaching and dyeing on a job-work basis amounted to manufacture. Because an efficacious statutory appeal under Section 5A(7) of the Textiles Committee Act, 1963 was available, the Court held that writ jurisdiction should not be used in preference to the appellate remedy. The petition was treated as premature for non-exhaustion of the statutory appeal process, and the merits of cess liability were left open for consideration by the appellate authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory appeal remedy under Section 5A(7) of the Textiles Committee Act, 1963.

Analysis: The challenge to the cess demand turned on a disputed factual question as to whether the bleaching and dyeing operations undertaken on job work basis amounted to manufacture. The Court held that such questions could not be satisfactorily determined in writ proceedings and that the appellate authority was the proper forum for examining the material facts. The authorities relied upon by the petitioner were distinguished because those matters had remained pending for a long period and did not involve the same disputed factual controversy.

Conclusion: The writ petition was held to be premature for non-exhaustion of the statutory appeal remedy, and the petitioner was directed to pursue the appellate remedy; the merits of the cess liability were left open.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the core controversy depends on a disputed question of fact and an efficacious statutory appeal is available, writ jurisdiction should not be invoked in preference to the statutory remedy.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to enter the merits of the cess dispute and required the petitioner to seek relief before the appellate authority.

---