Writ maintainability and disputed MODVAT credit facts bar Article 226 interference where a statutory appeal is available.

The article states that a writ petition challenging disallowance of MODVAT credit, penalty, and withdrawal of facility should not be entertained when an effective statutory appeal is available before CEGAT. It emphasises that disputes involving alleged suppression of facts, entitlement to credit, and extended limitation require detailed factual enquiry, which is unsuitable for Article 226 review. In the absence of exceptional grounds such as lack of jurisdiction or violation of fundamental rights, the Court should decline writ interference and direct the party to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the availability of an alternative statutory remedy, and whether the dispute raised such questions of fact that the Court should decline interference under Article 226.

Analysis: The petition challenged disallowance of MODVAT credit, imposition of penalty, and withdrawal of the facility, but the central objection was that the petitioner had not exhausted the appellate remedy before CEGAT. The Court held that the controversy turned on allegations of suppression of facts and other disputed matters relating to entitlement to credit and invocation of extended limitation, which would require detailed factual enquiry. In the absence of exceptional circumstances such as lack of jurisdiction or infringement of fundamental rights, the writ jurisdiction was not to be invoked merely because the statutory remedy might be onerous.

Conclusion: The writ petition was held to be not maintainable at that stage, and the petitioner was left to pursue the statutory appeal remedy.

---