Alternative statutory remedy bars writ challenge to tax assessment when disputed facts require resolution in appeal.

Where a fiscal statute provides an efficacious statutory appeal against an assessment order, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should ordinarily not be used to bypass that remedy, especially in revenue disputes turning on disputed facts. The Supreme Court noted that the assessment scheme under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act afforded appellate and further statutory remedies, and that the controversy also involved factual questions such as the date of the assessment order. In these circumstances, the High Court ought to have relegated the assessee to the appellate forum; its interference in writ jurisdiction and quashing of the assessment order were held to be erroneous.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against an assessment order under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 despite the availability of an effective statutory appeal.

Analysis: The assessment order was passed under a fiscal statutory scheme that provided a right of appeal against the assessment order and further statutory remedies thereafter. The dispute also involved contested questions of fact, including the date on which the assessment order was actually made. In such circumstances, the settled rule of judicial prudence is that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked to bypass an efficacious alternative remedy, particularly in revenue matters. The High Court therefore ought to have relegated the assessee to the appellate forum instead of entertaining the writ petition.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in the facts of the case and the High Court was wrong in quashing the assessment order in writ jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The assessment order and consequential demand were set aside by the High Court in error, and the assessee was required to pursue the statutory appellate remedies under the taxing statutes.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a fiscal statute provides an efficacious appellate remedy, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be exercised to challenge an assessment order, especially when the controversy turns on disputed facts.

---