Statutory appeal and factual dispute limit Article 226 intervention in tax assessments, with remand required for fresh determination.

In tax assessment matters, the availability of a statutory appeal ordinarily makes Article 226 relief inappropriate, especially where the dispute turns on factual inquiry; the High Court should not act as an original or appellate assessing authority, and the writ petition should not have been entertained. Where the assessing officer had not decided whether the sales were in the course of import under Article 286(1)(b) and the relevant facts were incomplete or unascertained, the High Court should not determine that question in writ proceedings. The proper course was to remit the matter for fresh factual determination and decision according to law.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the High Court should have entertained the writ petition under Article 226 in view of the statutory remedy of appeal in a tax assessment matter; (ii) whether the High Court ought to have decided the question whether the sales were in the course of import under Article 286(1)(b) on the facts found, or should have remitted the matter to the assessing authority.

Issue (i): whether the High Court should have entertained the writ petition under Article 226 in view of the statutory remedy of appeal in a tax assessment matter

Analysis: The availability of an appeal under the taxing statute ordinarily provides the proper remedy against an assessment order. In tax matters, the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 is not meant to convert the High Court into an original or appellate assessing authority, especially where the dispute turns on factual inquiry. Exceptional circumstances are required to justify bypassing the statutory hierarchy.

Conclusion: The writ petition should not have been entertained on the facts of the case.

Issue (ii): whether the High Court ought to have decided the question whether the sales were in the course of import under Article 286(1)(b) on the facts found, or should have remitted the matter to the assessing authority

Analysis: The Sales Tax Officer had not adjudicated the import question at all. Where taxability depends upon precise factual determination and the relevant facts are incomplete, disputed, or not found by the assessing authority, the High Court should not decide the issue in writ proceedings. The proper course is to quash the assessment to the extent necessary and remit the matter for independent factual determination and decision according to law.

Conclusion: The High Court should have remanded the matter instead of deciding the import question itself.

Final Conclusion: The assessment order was set aside to the extent indicated and the case was sent back for fresh decision on the relevant facts and law, leaving the merits of the import question open.

Ratio Decidendi: In taxing matters, where liability depends on disputed or unascertained facts, the High Court should ordinarily decline to decide the merits under Article 226 and should remit the matter to the statutory authority for factual determination and decision in accordance with law.

---