Writ remedy versus statutory appeal: factual tax disputes were sent to appeal with interim protection against recovery.

A writ challenge to an assessment order was not entertained on merits because the dispute turned on contested factual questions concerning the nature of the activity, valuation of goods and the applicable rate of tax. The Court noted that the assessment had been made without adequate consideration of the written objections, but considered a remand unnecessary and directed the petitioner to pursue the statutory appellate remedy. To balance hardship, the Court granted interim protection by treating the directed payment as compliance for admission of the appeal and staying recovery of the balance demand until the appeal was decided.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the assessment order should be entertained on merits or whether the petitioner should be relegated to the statutory appellate remedy with interim protection.

Analysis: The dispute involved contested questions of fact relating to the nature of the activity, valuation of the goods, and the correct rate of tax. The assessment order was also passed without adequate consideration of the written objections already filed by the petitioner. In these circumstances, the Court found that a remand would serve no useful purpose and that the appropriate course was to direct the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal. At the same time, considering the financial difficulty pleaded and the pending appeal for the earlier assessment year, the Court granted interim protection by treating the directed payment as compliance for entertaining the appeal and by staying recovery of the balance demand till disposal of the appeal.

Conclusion: The petitioner was relegated to the appellate remedy, with limited protective relief granted against recovery, in favour of the petitioner.

---