Writ jurisdiction cannot bypass a pending statutory appeal when the same issues are already before the appellate forum.

A writ petition challenging demand, licence-related relief and refund was held not maintainable because the same foundational issues were already being addressed in statutory proceedings before the excise authorities and a pending appeal before the Tribunal. Where the adjudicatory forum had examined the core controversy, including the finding that the unit was fictitious and the levy of duty and penalty, the High Court should not use Article 226 to bypass the available appellate remedy. The writ jurisdiction was therefore declined in favour of the statutory process.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the pending statutory appeal and the substantial identity of issues between the writ petition and the proceedings before the excise authorities.

Analysis: The petition challenged the demand, licence-related relief, and refund claim, but the excise authorities had already adjudicated the core controversy by holding the unit to be fictitious and by levying duty and penalty. The same foundational questions were also the subject-matter of the pending appeal before the Tribunal. In such circumstances, the writ petition sought to bypass the statutory remedy and could not be entertained.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction where the controversy was already engaged in statutory proceedings and the appeal process remained available and pending.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an effective statutory appeal is pending and the writ petition raises substantially the same issues as those arising in the adjudicatory proceedings, the High Court should not invoke Article 226 to short-circuit the statutory remedy.

---