Statutory remedy must be exhausted before invoking Article 226 in a sales tax assessment challenge.

Article 226 could not be used to bypass the statutory sales tax remedy where the petitioner challenged a proposed assessment on the basis that its contracts were not sales and it was not a dealer. The Court noted that the Act provided a complete appellate and revisional scheme, with reference to the High Court on questions of law, and that the petition disclosed no infringement of a fundamental right. It also distinguished the cited Supreme Court authority because the statutory scheme did not require pre-deposit of the full assessed tax before appeal. As the true nature of the transactions was not clearly established on the material, the writ petition was dismissed and the petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory route.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner could invoke Article 226 to challenge the proposed sales tax assessment without first exhausting the remedies provided under sections 20 and 21 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.

Analysis: The petition raised a challenge to the assessment machinery on the ground that the petitioner's contracts did not amount to sales and that he was not a dealer. The Court held that the Delhi sales tax statute provided a comprehensive remedy by way of appeal to the Commissioner, revision by the Chief Commissioner, and reference to the High Court on questions of law. The facts stated in the petition did not disclose any infringement of a fundamental right, and the statutory scheme did not require pre-deposit of the entire assessed tax before appeal, unlike the regime considered in the cited Supreme Court authority. The Court also found that the nature of the petitioner's transactions was not clearly established on the material before it, and that a statutory reference procedure would be the appropriate course for obtaining a complete statement of the case.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to bypass the statutory remedy and seek relief directly under Article 226; the writ petition was dismissed.

---