Writ jurisdiction and alternate statutory remedy: tax dispute relegated to specialised appellate tribunal where facts were disputed.

Article 226 writ jurisdiction was declined where the tax challenge involved disputed questions of fact and evidence, and an effective statutory appeal lay before the specialised Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Court held that the correctness of the appellate tax order should be examined in that forum rather than in writ proceedings. The petition was therefore not entertained on merits, and the petitioner was left to pursue the statutory appeal with liberty to seek condonation of delay.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the appellate tax order was maintainable in view of the statutory remedy of appeal before the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Analysis: The impugned order was an appellate order under the sales tax enactment. The Court held that the correctness of such an order had to be examined before the specialised appellate tribunal. Since the writ petition raised disputed questions of fact and evidence, the High Court would not exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 to decide the merits of the assessment dispute when an efficacious statutory appeal was available.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained on merits and the petitioner was left to pursue the statutory appeal before the Tribunal, with liberty to seek condonation of delay.

Final Conclusion: The dispute was relegated to the statutory appellate forum, and the writ proceedings were disposed of without adjudication on the merits of the tax demand.

Ratio Decidendi: Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily not exercised to decide tax disputes involving disputed facts when an effective statutory appellate remedy is available before a specialised tribunal.

---