Writ jurisdiction and statutory appeal: disputed tax facts must go before the appellate authority, with writ time potentially counted for limitation.

Where a writ challenge to assessment orders involves disputed questions of fact, including whether the arrangement is a works contract, the matter should ordinarily be pursued before the statutory appellate authority, which can examine both facts and law in the first instance. The existence of an efficacious appeal and objections based on pre-deposit did not justify bypassing that remedy, so the writ petitions were not entertained. The Court also recognised that bona fide time spent in writ proceedings may be counted in a later appeal under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, or on analogous principles, leaving the assessee free to pursue the statutory appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions challenging the assessment orders could be entertained despite the availability of an appellate remedy, and whether the petitioner could rely on the time spent in writ proceedings for any future appeal.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the underlying arrangement was a works contract, which involved factual controversy and required examination of records and transactions. Such questions were more appropriately examined by the appellate authority, which could consider both facts and law in the first instance. The Court also held that the time spent bona fide in prosecuting the writ petitions could be taken into account in a later appeal by invoking Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, or principles analogous thereto. The objection based on pre-deposit did not justify bypassing the statutory appellate mechanism.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not entertained and were dismissed, with liberty to pursue the statutory appeal remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the challenge raises disputed questions of fact and an efficacious statutory appeal is available, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked, and time spent bona fide in writ proceedings may be considered for limitation purposes in a later statutory appeal.

---