Subordinate legislation cannot shift tax liability from seller to purchaser when the parent Act fixes the charging incidence.

A writ was maintainable despite alternative statutory remedies because the challenge went to the validity of the rule itself. Rule 20A of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Rules, 1947 was ultra vires because the parent Act taxed a dealer's turnover and placed liability on the seller, while the rule sought to shift the tax burden to a purchaser who had used goods otherwise than declared. Subordinate legislation could not alter the incidence of tax or impose liability on a person different from that identified in the charging section. The assessment and demand based on the invalid rule could not stand, and mandamus was granted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petition was barred on the ground that statutory remedies had not been exhausted; (ii) Whether rule 20A of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Rules, 1947 was ultra vires and could be used to levy tax on the purchaser in the circumstances of the case.

Issue (i): Whether the petition was barred on the ground that statutory remedies had not been exhausted.

Analysis: A writ may issue where the impugned provision is alleged to be illegal or ultra vires, because the question is whether the authorities can validly rely on that provision at all. The existence of remedies under the taxing statute did not prevent the Court from examining the validity of the rule when the challenge was to the rule itself.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection based on availability of alternative remedies was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether rule 20A of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Rules, 1947 was ultra vires and could be used to levy tax on the purchaser in the circumstances of the case.

Analysis: The charging scheme of the Act imposed tax on a dealer's turnover, that is, on sale prices, and the liability under the Act lay on the seller in respect of the taxable sale. Rule 20A attempted to require a registered dealer who had purchased goods on declaration and later used them otherwise than declared to show the purchase price and pay tax on it. This shifted the incidence of taxation from the seller to the purchaser, which could not be done by rule when the Act itself did not authorise such a departure from the charging section. Even if the Legislature could have imposed such liability, it had to do so in the Act and not by subordinate legislation.

Conclusion: Rule 20A was held to be ultra vires and unenforceable against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The impugned assessment and demand could not stand, and mandamus was warranted to prevent reliance on the invalid rule.

Ratio Decidendi: Subordinate legislation cannot alter the incidence of a tax or impose liability on a person different from the one made liable by the charging section of the parent Act.

---