Alternative remedy and disputed facts bar writ review of a VAT refund rejection when factual verification is required.

A writ challenge to rejection of a refund claim was found unsuitable where the dispute depended on factual questions about an alleged clerical error, limitation, and the correctness of the claim under the statutory scheme. Those matters required examination of documents and evidence by the competent authority rather than a roving inquiry in writ jurisdiction. Because a statutory revisional remedy was available and had not been exhausted, the High Court declined to entertain the petition and directed the petitioner to pursue revision under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging rejection of refund was maintainable when disputed questions of fact arose and a statutory revisional remedy was available under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.

Analysis: The refund claim turned on factual disputes regarding the alleged clerical error, the limitation for filing the refund application, and the correctness of the claim under the statutory scheme. Such matters required examination of documents and evidence by the competent statutory authority rather than by the High Court in writ proceedings. Since the Act provided a revisional remedy and the petitioner had approached the Court without exhausting that remedy, the Court declined to undertake a roving enquiry into disputed facts.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained and the petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory revision remedy under Section 54 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.

---