Ultra vires tax levy on works contracts cannot be recovered, and writ relief remains available despite an alternative remedy.

A tax demand on indivisible works contracts was without authority of law once the charging provision was held ultra vires, and Article 265 barred its recovery. The levy and recovery were therefore unlawful, and writ relief restraining enforcement was sustained. The mere availability of a civil suit did not defeat writ jurisdiction where the demand itself lacked legal basis. The Court affirmed that an invalid tax levy can be prevented in writ proceedings notwithstanding an alternative remedy.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether sales tax could be levied and recovered on amounts assessed as turnover from indivisible works contracts after the charging provision was held ultra vires; and (ii) whether the High Court could grant writ relief notwithstanding the availability of a civil suit as an alternative remedy.

Issue (i): whether sales tax could be levied and recovered on amounts assessed as turnover from indivisible works contracts after the charging provision was held ultra vires.

Analysis: The assessments were treated as having been made on the footing that the transactions were indivisible works contracts. Once the relevant part of the charging provision under the Madras General Sales Tax Act was declared beyond legislative competence, the levy in respect of such contracts was without authority of law. In such a situation, Article 265 prohibited recovery of the tax and the assessing authorities were acting outside the Act in seeking to enforce the demand.

Conclusion: The levy and recovery were unlawful and the challenge succeeded on this issue.

Issue (ii): whether the High Court could grant writ relief notwithstanding the availability of a civil suit as an alternative remedy.

Analysis: Although the existence of an alternative remedy ordinarily weighs against resort to writ jurisdiction, the High Court had already exercised its discretionary jurisdiction to prevent recovery of an invalid levy. The mere availability of a suit did not compel interference in appeal where the tax demand itself lacked legal authority.

Conclusion: The writ relief was maintainable and the appeal could not succeed on this ground.

Final Conclusion: The tax demand on works contracts was void for want of legislative competence, and the High Court's writ prohibiting recovery was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A tax levied under a provision declared ultra vires is a levy without authority of law and can be restrained in writ jurisdiction, notwithstanding the availability of an alternative civil remedy.

---