Writ jurisdiction and parallel tax recovery: stay granted on Central sales tax pending disposal of connected appeals.

Article 32 writ relief was declined where assessment appeals on the same sales tax dispute were already pending before the appellate authority and the Tribunal, so final adjudication in writ jurisdiction was not pursued. The Court nevertheless recognised the risk of parallel recovery proceedings involving Central sales tax and local sales tax on the same transactions and granted protective relief by staying recovery of Central sales tax on the covered transactions until the connected appeals were decided.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition under Article 32 should be entertained when assessment appeals on the same dispute were already pending before the appellate authority and the Tribunal; and whether recovery of Central sales tax should be stayed in respect of transactions on which local sales tax had already been paid in other States.

Analysis: The petition raised a dispute concerning levy of Central sales tax on transactions said to have been treated by the parties and State authorities as local sales. As appellate remedies were already pending on the same issues, the writ jurisdiction under Article 32 was not invoked for final adjudication. At the same time, the Court noticed a possible hardship arising from parallel demands of local sales tax and Central sales tax on the same transactions and granted protective relief by restraining recovery pending disposal of the appeals.

Outcome: The writ petition was not entertained for final adjudication and was dismissed, but recovery of Central sales tax on the covered transactions was stayed pending disposal of the connected appeals.

---