Statutory remedy exhaustion limits Article 226 relief where an adequate sales tax appeal exists and revision payment conditions apply.

An effective statutory appeal against a sales tax assessment was available to assessees served with notice, and that appeal could challenge the legality of the assessment itself, including exemption and non-liability claims. Because the appeal was adequate and no exceptional circumstance justified bypassing it, writ relief under Article 226 could be declined for non-exhaustion of the statutory remedy. Rule 61 also made the payment requirements in the appellate rules applicable to revision petitions, so the Commissioner could insist on payment of the assessed tax, and penalty if any, before entertaining revision. The commentary emphasises exhaustion of statutory remedies and enforcement of procedural preconditions in revision proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution were maintainable when the petitioners had an available statutory appeal under the sales tax law but did not pursue it. (ii) Whether the Commissioner could require payment of the assessed tax as a condition for entertaining the revision petitions.

Issue (i): Whether writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution were maintainable when the petitioners had an available statutory appeal under the sales tax law but did not pursue it.

Analysis: The appellate remedy under Section 20 of the Patiala and East Punjab States Union General Sales Tax Ordinance was available to every dealer served with notice of assessment under Section 11. The scope of that appeal was wide enough to permit challenge to the legality of the assessment itself, including the contention that the goods were exempt or that no tax was payable. The existence of a revision remedy under Section 21 did not displace the appeal, because revision was discretionary and did not provide the same statutory protection as an appeal. In writ jurisdiction, the availability of an effective alternative remedy was a strong reason to decline relief, and no exceptional circumstance was shown to justify bypassing the statutory machinery.

Conclusion: The petitions were not maintainable in writ jurisdiction on this ground, and the petitioners were against relief.

Issue (ii): Whether the Commissioner could require payment of the assessed tax as a condition for entertaining the revision petitions.

Analysis: Rule 61 made the appellate requirements in Rules 58 and 59 applicable to revision petitions. Those rules required the assessed tax and penalty, if any, to be paid and authorised summary rejection for non-compliance. Since the petitioners had not paid the assessed tax, the Commissioner was entitled to insist on compliance before proceeding with the revision applications.

Conclusion: The condition requiring payment before hearing the revision petitions was valid and was against the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: The statutory remedies were adequate and had not been exhausted, and the writ court declined to interfere with the assessment or with the Commissioner's insistence on prior payment.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an adequate statutory appeal is available against an assessment order, writ relief under Article 226 may be refused for non-exhaustion of that remedy, and procedural requirements made applicable to revision proceedings may validly be enforced by the authority.

---