Writ jurisdiction and tax assessment disputes cannot bypass appellate remedy when composite contract and valuation issues are factual and legal.

A writ challenge to a tax assessment was held inappropriate where the dispute turned on whether contracts were composite and on the correctness of valuation, both of which required appreciation of mixed questions of fact and law. The HC held that such issues are not suitable for adjudication under Article 226 when an effective statutory appellate remedy exists. The petition was therefore not maintainable, and the assessee was directed to pursue the appellate forum.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an appellate remedy, when the challenge turned on disputed questions regarding the composite nature of the contracts and valuation.

Analysis: The petitioner sought to assail the assessment order by contending that the contracts were separate and not composite, while the revenue maintained that they formed a composite works contract. The Court held that the nature of the transaction, the scope of the contract, and the correctness of valuation involved appreciation of facts and law together. Such issues were not fit for adjudication in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 when an effective statutory appeal was available. The Court also noted that the earlier order had already recorded that the dispute was a mixed question of fact and law.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and the petitioner was relegated to the appellate remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the challenge to a tax assessment raises disputed mixed questions of fact and law, the writ court should not exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 when an efficacious statutory appellate remedy is available.

---