Alternative statutory remedy bars writ relief where refund rejection depends on disputed facts and no special circumstances are shown.

Where a refund rejection turns on disputed factual issues, including whether refund applications were filed and the evidentiary value of supporting records, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be exercised because it would require fresh appraisal of facts. The availability of an effective statutory appellate remedy is not an absolute bar to writ relief, but the petitioner must show special circumstances to bypass that remedy. No such circumstances were shown, so the writ petition was not maintainable and the petitioner was left to pursue the appellate remedy under the statute.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging rejection of refund was maintainable in view of the availability of an alternative statutory remedy when adjudication depended on disputed questions of fact.

Analysis: The refund claim had been rejected after the assessing authority examined the records and made factual findings regarding the alleged filing of refund applications and the evidentiary value of the delivery book produced by the petitioner. To interfere with those findings, a fresh appreciation of disputed facts would be necessary. In such circumstances, the appropriate course was to pursue the appellate remedy provided under the statute rather than invoke extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The existence of an alternative remedy did not operate as an absolute bar, but no special circumstance was shown to justify bypassing it.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed, leaving the petitioner to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the impugned order turns on disputed factual issues and the statute provides an effective appellate remedy, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be exercised in the absence of special circumstances.

---