Writ maintainability in revenue disputes is declined where factual questions are contested and a statutory remedy exists.

A writ petition challenging an attachment-related revenue communication was held not maintainable because the dispute turned on contested facts requiring examination of explanations, objections, and documents before the competent authority. The communication was treated as only a preliminary step by the Tax Recovery Officer for collecting particulars and initiating further action, not a final adjudication. The Court also noted that the petitioner had an effective statutory remedy under Rule 11 of Schedule II of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which had to be pursued in the manner known to law. Accordingly, interference under Article 226 was declined and the petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the impugned attachment-related communication was maintainable in the face of disputed factual issues and the availability of a statutory remedy.

Analysis: The impugned communication was only a step taken by the Tax Recovery Officer for collecting particulars and initiating further action. The petitioner's grievance turned on disputed contents of the letter, which required examination of explanations, objections, and documents before the competent authority. Such disputed questions of fact were not fit for adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court also noted the availability of the remedy under Rule 11 of Schedule II of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which had to be pursued in the manner known to law.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and stood dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a petitioner challenges a revenue communication raising disputed factual issues and an effective statutory remedy is available, the writ court will decline interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

---