Writ interference limited where hacking claim raises disputed facts and appellate remedy remains available under VAT proceedings.

Assessment under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 was not interfered with in writ jurisdiction because the dealer's claim that E-way bills were generated by third parties after hacking its account raised a disputed question of fact, unsuitable for summary adjudication. The record showed the dealer had a registered portal login, multiple E-way bills were generated, and two bills were admittedly used by it, while the dealer also failed to promptly report the alleged misuse and filed NIL returns despite portal transactions. The availability of an appellate remedy further weighed against writ relief, and the dealer's conduct disentitled it to equitable intervention.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessment order under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 was liable to be set aside in writ jurisdiction on the ground that the E-way bills were allegedly generated by third parties after hacking the dealer's account, and whether the petitioner was entitled to relief despite the availability of an appellate remedy.

Analysis: The petitioner was a registered dealer with user ID and password for the departmental portal, and the material on record showed generation of multiple E-way bills including two bills admittedly used by the petitioner. The Court found that the alleged hacking plea was a disputed question of fact not suitable for writ adjudication, particularly when the petitioner had not promptly disclosed the alleged misuse and had filed NIL returns despite the transactions reflected in the portal. The Court further held that the existence of an appeal under the Act weighed against exercise of discretionary writ jurisdiction, and that the petitioner's conduct disentitled it to equitable relief.

Conclusion: The assessment order was not liable to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction, and the challenge failed.

---