Alternative statutory remedy bars writ review where assessment disputes raise factual questions unsuitable for Article 226.

A writ petition challenging an assessment order under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 is generally not maintainable where an effective statutory appeal under section 26 is available and has not been pursued. The text further notes that disputed questions concerning the nature of the transaction, delivery, situs and appropriation of goods are matters of fact and contract unsuitable for determination in writ jurisdiction under Article 226. In that setting, the extraordinary writ remedy should not be invoked when an adequate alternative appellate remedy exists, and the petition was dismissed for non-availment of that remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the assessment order was maintainable despite the statutory appeal remedy under section 26 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002, and whether disputed factual questions could be examined in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The challenge was directed against an assessment order passed under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002. A statutory appeal remedy was available under section 26, but it had not been availed. The record also showed that the controversy turned on disputed contractual and factual questions concerning the nature of the transaction, delivery, situs, and appropriation of goods, which were not suitable for adjudication in writ proceedings. In such circumstances, the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 was not to be exercised when an adequate alternative remedy existed.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed for non-availment of the alternative statutory remedy.

---