Statutory appellate remedy bars writ review where assessment revision turns on disputed facts and record verification.

Where an efficacious statutory appeal is available against an assessment revision order, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 will ordinarily not be exercised to examine disputed questions of fact or document-based discrepancies. The High Court treated the appellate remedy as the normal course, noting that verification of inspection material, objections and records is for the appellate authority as the final fact-finding forum. In the absence of any exceptional circumstance justifying direct interference, the writ petition was not entertained and the petitioner was left to pursue the statutory appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition should be entertained despite the availability of an appellate remedy against the impugned assessment revision order.

Analysis: The impugned order arose from a revision based on inspection and enforcement material, requiring verification of records, objections and factual discrepancies. The availability of an efficacious statutory appeal was treated as the normal course, and the High Court held that disputed factual issues and scrutiny of documents are matters for the appellate authority, which is the final fact-finding forum. The existence of an alternative remedy, coupled with the absence of any demonstrated exceptional circumstance warranting direct writ interference, weighed against entertaining the petition under Article 226.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained on merits and the petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory appeal.

Final Conclusion: Judicial review was declined in favour of the statutory appellate mechanism, and the petitioner was left to seek relief before the competent appellate authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory appeal is available, the High Court will ordinarily not exercise writ jurisdiction to examine disputed questions of fact arising from assessment or revision proceedings.

---