Alternate remedy rule bars writ review where assessment disputes depend on factual issues and statutory appeal is available.

Writ jurisdiction was declined where the challenge to assessment and refund orders turned on disputed factual appreciation of input tax credit and stock transfers outside the State, since those grievances could be examined effectively in statutory appeal. The Court treated entertaining the writ on the same material as an impermissible appellate review in writ proceedings and directed the petitioner to pursue the alternate remedy. Limited interim protection was granted to preserve the right to file the appeal and stay petition within limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition should be entertained despite the availability of an appellate remedy against the assessment and refund orders, and whether the petitioner should be relegated to the statutory appeal.

Analysis: The challenge was founded on alleged perversity in the assessment and refund orders, but the controversy arose from disputed factual appreciation of the input tax credit and the effect of stock transfers outside the State. The Court noted that the grievance could be examined by the appellate authority and that entertaining the writ petition on the same material would amount to an appellate review in writ jurisdiction. As the matter presented an arguable case fit for consideration in appeal, the petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory remedy, with protection granted to enable filing of the appeal and stay petition within limitation.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained on merits and the petitioner was relegated to the appellate remedy.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were left to be tested in statutory appeal, and interim protection was granted to preserve the petitioner's position for a limited period while recourse to the appellate forum was taken.

---