Statutory appellate remedy bars writ review where refund entitlement can be examined in appeal.

A refund rejection order treated as appealable was held to provide an effective statutory appellate remedy, so the writ court declined to continue the matter under Article 226. The court noted that entitlement to the refund and the disputed amount could be examined in the appeal process, making it unnecessary to reopen the earlier judgment dismissing the writ appeal. On that basis, the review was found not maintainable on merits and was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the review of the earlier judgment dismissing the writ appeal was warranted in view of the availability of an appellate remedy against the refund rejection order.

Analysis: The refund claim had already been rejected by the Assistant Collector, who expressly treated the order as appealable. The Court noted that the disputed refund amount and the entitlement thereto involved questions that could be examined in the statutory appeal. In these circumstances, the Court found no basis to reopen the earlier decision or to continue the matter under Article 226 when an effective appellate remedy was available.

Conclusion: The review was not maintainable on merits and was rejected.

---