The petitioner challenged an order reversing input tax credit on the allegation that the supplier was a bogus entity and had not paid tax. The factual background showed that the department relied on investigation reports to reverse ITC and the petitioner invoked writ jurisdiction alleging non-consideration of its reply.

The Court held that the case involved disputed questions of fact regarding genuineness of transactions and existence of the supplier. Such issues cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed with liberty to avail statutory appellate remedy, and directions were issued to consider the appeal on merits if filed within the stipulated period.