Writ jurisdiction declines where disputed facts exist and an alternative statutory appellate remedy is available.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily declined where the controversy turns on disputed questions of fact and an efficacious statutory remedy exists. The dispute here concerned the identity of the business entity and the legality of the inspection, both requiring factual determination not suited to writ proceedings. An appellate remedy was available before the jurisdictional authority under Section 62 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, so the petitioner was directed to pursue that statutory course instead of invoking writ relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition should be entertained when the dispute involved questions of fact and an alternative statutory remedy was available.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the identity of the business entity and the legality of the inspection, both of which required factual determination. Such disputed questions of fact are ordinarily not investigated in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was also shown to have a statutory remedy before the jurisdictional appellate authority under Section 62 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appellate remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: Writ jurisdiction is ordinarily declined where the controversy involves disputed questions of fact and an efficacious alternative statutory remedy is available.

---