Writ jurisdiction and sales tax remedies: statutory appeal and revision barred Article 226 relief against assessment challenges.

A writ under Article 226 was held inappropriate to restrain sales tax assessment and recovery where the Bihar Sales Tax Act provided a complete remedial scheme of appeal, revision and reference. The assessment, made after the dealer filed a return and statutory preconditions under Section 13 were satisfied, was not rendered a nullity merely because the taxing authority relied on a provision later alleged to be ultra vires. That reliance was treated as, at most, an error of law made within jurisdiction, not absence of jurisdiction. The statutory remedies were therefore the proper course, and writ jurisdiction was not to be used as a substitute for appeal on the merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution could be granted to restrain sales tax assessment and recovery when the Sales Tax Act provided an appeal, revision, and reference mechanism, and whether reliance on an allegedly ultra vires taxing provision made the assessment without jurisdiction.

Analysis: The assessment was made under the machinery of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947, after the petitioner filed a return and the statutory preconditions for assessment under Section 13 were satisfied. Reliance by the taxing authority on a provision later alleged to be ultra vires did not, by itself, render the assessment a nullity or convert the exercise into one without jurisdiction; at most, it constituted a mistake of law made in the course of jurisdiction. The Act also provided a complete remedial scheme by way of appeal under Section 24, revision under Section 24(4), and reference to the High Court under Section 25. In such circumstances, writ relief was not appropriate, since the statutory remedies were adequate and the High Court should not be turned into a court of appeal on the merits of the assessment.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in view of the statutory alternative remedies, and the challenge to the assessment on jurisdictional grounds failed.

Final Conclusion: The application was rejected because the petitioner had to pursue the remedies provided by the sales tax statute instead of invoking writ jurisdiction.

---