Exhaustion of statutory remedy bars Article 226 relief where assessment documents can be compelled under sales tax law.

Under the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, the authority conducting assessment had power to compel production of documents, with powers akin to a civil court, and the relevant rules showed that the Assistant Commissioner could exercise that authority. Because no application was first made to the Assistant Commissioner for production of the documents, the statutory remedy under the sales tax law was not exhausted. The document states that this remedy was equally efficacious and expeditious, so a petition under Article 226 would ordinarily not be maintainable until the statutory route had been pursued.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petition under Article 226 was maintainable when the petitioner had not first invoked the remedy under the sales tax law for compelling production of the documents required in the assessment proceedings.

Analysis: Section 20 of the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 empowered the Commissioner or a person appointed under Section 3(1) to compel production of documents and conferred powers akin to those of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Rule 3, Part II of the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Rules, 1947, read with Section 3(1), showed that the Assistant Commissioner before whom the assessment was pending was an with that authority. Since no application had been made to the Assistant Commissioner for production of the documents, the statutory remedy available under the Act had not been exhausted. That remedy was considered equally efficacious and expeditious for obtaining the documents if they were necessary for the assessment.

Conclusion: The petition was not maintainable in view of the available statutory remedy and was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an equally efficacious statutory remedy exists for obtaining the relief sought, a writ petition under Article 226 will ordinarily not lie until that remedy has been exhausted.

---