Writ jurisdiction barred by disputed facts where an effective statutory appeal remedy exists against recovery proceedings.

A writ challenge to recovery proceedings was held unsuitable for writ jurisdiction where liability for tax arrears depended on disputed questions of fact. The court noted that such factual controversy could not be properly examined in a writ petition and that an efficacious statutory alternative remedy was available by way of first appeal under Section 51 of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005. In those circumstances, the petition was not maintainable and was dismissed in limine. The stated principle is that writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be invoked when adjudication turns on disputed facts and an effective appellate remedy exists.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging recovery proceedings was maintainable when it involved disputed questions of fact and an alternate statutory appeal remedy was available.

Analysis: The challenge to the recovery notice required examination of disputed factual issues, including the petitioner's liability for the tax arrears. Such controversy was not fit for adjudication in writ jurisdiction. The availability of a first appeal under Section 51 of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 provided an efficacious alternate remedy.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed in limine.

Ratio Decidendi: Where adjudication requires resolution of disputed facts and an efficacious statutory appellate remedy exists, writ jurisdiction will not ordinarily be invoked.

---