Writ jurisdiction and refund rejection: contested facts and available appeal remedy meant natural justice challenge failed.

Writ jurisdiction was held ordinarily inappropriate where rejection of refund turned on contested factual issues and the statutory appellate remedy remained available, so the petitioner was relegated to appeal. No violation of natural justice was found because a show-cause notice had been issued and responded to, and the case was not one of a curable defect in the refund application. The document states that interference was declined and the refund rejection stood to be challenged through the appellate route.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition challenging rejection of refund was maintainable in view of the statutory appellate remedy and the disputed questions of fact involved; (ii) Whether the rejection of refund suffered from violation of natural justice for want of notice or opportunity under the refund rules.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition challenging rejection of refund was maintainable in view of the statutory appellate remedy and the disputed questions of fact involved.

Analysis: The impugned refund rejection was based on the Revenue's stand that the claim was not a case of mere deficiency in the application but involved an allegation of tax evasion. The Court noted that the petitioner had not availed the appellate remedy and that the dispute required examination of contested factual issues, which are not ordinarily adjudicated in writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: Interference in writ jurisdiction was declined and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appeal remedy.

Issue (ii): Whether the rejection of refund suffered from violation of natural justice for want of notice or opportunity under the refund rules.

Analysis: The Court found that a show-cause notice had been issued and the petitioner had responded to it. It further held that the case was not one of deficiency in the refund application, so the opportunity contemplated for curing defects did not arise.

Conclusion: No violation of natural justice was found in the refund rejection process.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained on merits, and the petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory appeal remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a refund dispute turns on contested facts and the statutory appellate remedy remains available, writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be invoked, especially when notice and response requirements have been satisfied.

---