Statutory appeal must be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction in tax assessment challenges under Article 226.

In tax matters, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should ordinarily not be used to bypass an efficacious statutory appeal. The assessment order denying input rebate was appealable under the Madhya Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2002, and the assessee's claim that no disputed questions of fact arose did not justify skipping the appellate remedy. The High Court should have relegated the assessee to the statutory appeal instead of examining the assessment on merits. The impugned judgment was set aside, and the challenge was directed to proceed through the available appellate mechanism.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the assessment order despite the availability of a statutory appeal under Section 46(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2002.

Analysis: The assessment order denying input rebate was appealable under the statutory scheme. The mere assertion that no disputed questions of fact arose did not justify bypassing the appellate remedy. In tax matters, where the legislature has provided an efficacious remedy of appeal, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked to short-circuit that mechanism. The High Court ought to have relegated the assessee to the alternative remedy instead of examining the assessment on merits.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in entertaining the writ petition, and the challenge to the assessment order should have been pursued by statutory appeal.

Final Conclusion: The impugned judgment was set aside, and the assessee was relegated to the appellate remedy available under the taxing statute.

Ratio Decidendi: In a tax matter, when an efficacious statutory appeal is available, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised to bypass the statutory remedy.

---