Article 226 relief against unauthorised tax assessments is not barred by alternate remedy when jurisdiction is absent.

Article 226 relief was held available against a tax assessment alleged to be wholly without authority of law, even though an appeal existed under the U. P. Sales Tax Act, because threatened recovery of an unauthorised levy was treated as an infringement of the petitioner's right to carry on business. The court also stated that "dealer" under the Act required carrying on the business of buying or selling in the State, not merely passing of property there. On the undisputed facts, the petitioner had no place of business or agent in Uttar Pradesh, and the assessment was invalid because the statutory declaration and Commissioner's determination required for rules 6(c) and 6(d) were absent.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the existence of an appellate remedy barred relief under Article 226 of the Constitution against an assessment alleged to be without jurisdiction; (ii) whether the petitioner was a dealer under section 2(c) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, and whether the Sales Tax Officer had authority under rule 6(c) and rule 6(d) to make the assessment.

Issue (i): whether the existence of an appellate remedy barred relief under Article 226 of the Constitution against an assessment alleged to be without jurisdiction

Analysis: The availability of an appeal under section 9 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, did not preclude recourse to Article 226 where the levy was asserted to be wholly without authority of law. A threatened recovery of such a levy was treated as an infringement of the petitioner's fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, and the alternative-remedy objection was held inapplicable.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection based on alternate remedy failed, and the petition was maintainable.

Issue (ii): whether the petitioner was a dealer under section 2(c) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, and whether the Sales Tax Officer had authority under rule 6(c) and rule 6(d) to make the assessment

Analysis: The definition of "dealer" was read as requiring carrying on the business of buying or selling in the State, not merely the passing of property in goods within the State. On the undisputed facts, the petitioner had no place of business or agent in Uttar Pradesh and therefore did not answer that definition. Independently, the assessment officer lacked authority because the necessary declaration by the dealer under rule 6(c) had not been made and no determination by the Commissioner under rule 6(d) was shown. The assessment was therefore made without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not a dealer within section 2(c), and the assessment order was without jurisdiction and invalid.

Final Conclusion: The assessment and the consequential certificate proceedings were quashed, and the petitioner obtained protection against enforcement of the impugned tax demand.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a tax is levied or threatened to be recovered without legal authority, the existence of an appellate remedy does not bar a petition under Article 226, and an assessee lacking the statutory status or subjected to assessment by an unauthorised officer cannot be validly assessed.

---