Writ jurisdiction and disputed facts cannot bypass an available statutory appeal where demands require appellate examination.

Writ jurisdiction was declined because the impugned demands and orders were appealable under the statutory scheme, and the controversy depended on disputed facts. The terms of the B-2 bond, the effect of the storage circulars, the quantity of stock stored and cleared, and the plea of promissory estoppel required examination by the appellate authority rather than summary determination in writ proceedings. The plea of limitation was also not suitable for acceptance at the writ stage. The petitioners were therefore required to pursue the appellate remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions were maintainable in view of the availability of an appellate remedy and the presence of disputed questions of fact.

Analysis: The impugned demands and orders were appealable under the statutory scheme. The controversy turned on several factual questions, including the terms of the B-2 bond, the effect of the circulars regulating storage, the extent of stock stored and cleared, and the applicability of the plea of promissory estoppel. These matters required examination by the appropriate appellate authority rather than determination in writ jurisdiction. The plea of limitation was also not fit for summary acceptance in the writ petitions.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable and the petitioners were required to pursue the appellate remedy.

---