JUDGMENT :

Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.

1. The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of the order dated 26.03.2019 (Annexure P-3), passed by respondent No. 3, under the provisions of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (in short ‘the 2005 Act’). A further prayer has been made for issuing direction to respondent No. 3 to levy the interest on the tax liability as per the applicable provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and the 2005 Act, for the Assessment Year 2010-11.

2. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the averments made in the writ petition, we find that the disputed questions of fact have been sought to be raised in the writ petition. Further, the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy of appeal against the impugned orders. The Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, (2013) 357 ITR 357, elaborately considered the question of entertaining writ petition where alternative statutory remedy was available. After examining the relevant case law on the point, it was recorded in Paras 14 to 20 as under:-

"14. In the instant case, the only question which arises fo