Alternate remedy bars writ challenge where purchase genuineness turns on factual proof under MVAT assessment.

A writ challenge to an assessment order under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act was declined because the dispute depended on factual questions about actual receipt of goods and the sufficiency of supporting evidence. The assessing authority had considered the assessee's explanation but treated the purchases as not genuine for want of proof. In these circumstances, the appellate authority was the proper forum to examine the evidence, and the availability of an efficacious alternate remedy weighed against the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The petitioner was therefore left to pursue the statutory appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the assessment order under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax, 2002 should be entertained when the dispute turns on factual questions and an efficacious appellate remedy is available.

Analysis: The impugned order under Section 23 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax, 2002 had considered the assessee's explanation regarding receipt of goods, but held the purchases to be not genuine for want of supporting evidence. The challenge raised factual disputes as to actual receipt of goods and the sufficiency of the material placed before the assessing authority. In such circumstances, the proper forum for examination of the evidence was the appellate authority under the MVAT Act, and the existence of an efficacious alternate remedy weighed against exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained and was dismissed, leaving the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal.

---