Alternative statutory remedy barred writ review where refund rejection turned on disputed facts about document submission.

A writ challenge to rejection of refund was held not maintainable where the dispute turned on contested facts about whether original documents were filed and whether they were misplaced by the department. Because resolution required factual enquiry into the nature and submission of the documents, the matter was not suitable for writ jurisdiction. The impugned order was also appealable under Section 35, so the petitioner was required to pursue the statutory appellate remedy rather than bypass it through writ proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging rejection of refund should be entertained despite availability of a statutory appeal and the presence of disputed questions of fact.

Analysis: The challenge to the refund rejection depended on whether the petitioner had in fact submitted the original documents and whether those documents were misplaced by the department. That factual controversy was not admitted and required an enquiry into what documents were submitted, whether they were originals, and whether they were relevant to the refund claim. As the impugned order was appealable under Section 35, the dispute was one that ought to be examined in the statutory appellate forum rather than in writ proceedings.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in view of the alternative statutory remedy and the disputed questions of fact, and was rejected.

---