Writ jurisdiction and works contract classification cannot bypass an efficacious statutory appeal when facts are disputed.

Writ petitions challenging assessment orders and rejection of input tax credit were found unsuitable for Article 226 review where the dispute turned on whether the underlying arrangement was a works contract. The court noted that characterisation of the agreement as a supply contract or composite works contract depended on disputed facts and required detailed factual appreciation, including whether there was transfer of property in execution. Because the jurisdictional fact could not be conclusively decided in writ proceedings and an efficacious statutory appeal was available, writ jurisdiction was declined and the petitioner was directed to pursue the appellate remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions challenging assessment orders and rejection of input tax credit were maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India despite the availability of an statutory appeal, when the dispute turned on whether the underlying agreement constituted a works contract and involved disputed questions of fact.

Analysis: The challenge to the assessment depended on whether there was transfer of property in the execution of a works contract, which was asserted to be absent. The assessment orders, however, recorded multiple circumstances relied upon to treat the arrangement as a composite works contract and to levy tax accordingly. Whether the agreement was merely one for supply or a works contract was held to be a mixed question of fact and law requiring detailed factual appreciation. The rejection of input tax credit was also founded on the same characterization of the transaction. In such circumstances, the existence or otherwise of the jurisdictional fact could not be conclusively determined in writ proceedings, and the availability of the statutory appellate remedy weighed against exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable for interference under Article 226, and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appellate remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the existence of the jurisdictional fact depends on disputed questions of fact and the statute provides an efficacious appellate remedy, the High Court should not invoke writ jurisdiction to bypass the appellate process.

---