Writ jurisdiction and transaction classification: HC declined interference and directed the assessee to pursue the statutory appeal.

Classification of transactions as works contract or sale depended on examination of the contracts, invoices and supporting material, and no such material had been placed before the assessing authority to establish a works contract. The HC held that this factual enquiry could not be undertaken in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and that the petitioner should pursue the statutory appellate remedy. The Court therefore declined interference with the rectification order and did not express any view on the merits of the classification dispute.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ court should interfere with the assessment-related rectification order or relegate the petitioner to the statutory appellate remedy, leaving the classification of the transactions to be examined on the material to be produced before the authorities.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the transactions were works contract or sale, which depended on examination of the contracts, invoices and other supporting material. No such material had been placed before the assessing authority to establish that the transactions were works contract. In such circumstances, the Court held that the factual exercise of appreciating the nature of the transactions could not be undertaken in writ jurisdiction and that the proper course was to pursue the statutory appeal. The Court also declined to express any view on the merits of the classification issue.

Conclusion: Interference under Article 226 was declined and the petitioner was permitted to avail the statutory appellate remedy.

---