Writ jurisdiction cannot reopen a final tax revision order or substitute for the statutory appellate remedy.

A writ petition under Article 226 could not be used to annul or review a final trade tax revisional order under section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, where the tax liability issue had already been decided against the assessee. The Court held that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and cannot replace the statutory appellate scheme or operate as a review of a final revisional decision. As the proper remedy lay elsewhere and the controversy had attained finality, the challenge to the demand was not maintainable and failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 could be entertained to annul or review a final order passed in trade tax revision under section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, and thereby reopen an issue already decided against the assessee.

Analysis: The impugned demand arose from consequences flowing from the earlier revisional order, by which the tax liability issue had already been examined and decided. The Court held that the same controversy could not be reopened in writ jurisdiction, as the proper course against the revisional order was to pursue the appellate remedy before the Supreme Court. The Court further relied on the settled principle that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and must be exercised consistently with the statutory scheme, and cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal or to sit in review over a final revisional decision.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable for re-agitating an issue already concluded in trade tax revision, and the challenge to the demand failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A final revisional order under the sales tax law cannot be annulled or reviewed in writ jurisdiction under Article 226, and the High Court will not sit in appeal over its own revisional decision when the matter has already attained finality.

---