Writ jurisdiction declined where disputed facts and an available statutory appeal made appellate adjudication the proper course.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was held inappropriate where the assessee had an efficacious statutory appellate remedy and the dispute turned on contested facts requiring evidence. The controversy concerned whether material was received at the project site or by the assessee while goods were in transit, a factual question better suited to appellate adjudication. In these circumstances, the High Court declined direct interference, affirmed the Single Judge's approach, and left the assessee to pursue the statutory appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions were liable to be entertained despite the availability of an efficacious appellate remedy under the tax statute.

Analysis: The dispute turned on factual questions as to whether the material was received by the project owner at the site or by the assessee while the goods were in transit, and such disputed issues required appreciation of evidence. The Court noted that the assessee had an appellate remedy under the statute and that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is ordinarily not exercised where an alternative and efficacious remedy exists. In the circumstances, the matter was considered fit for adjudication before the appellate authority rather than in writ proceedings.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable for direct adjudication and the assessee was rightly relegated to the appellate remedy; the conclusion was against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The High Court declined to interfere with the Single Judge's order and left the assessee to pursue the statutory appeal remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: Ordinarily, writ jurisdiction will not be invoked where an efficacious statutory appellate remedy is available, especially when the controversy depends on appreciation of disputed facts and evidence.

---