Strict construction of tax exemption allows separate taxation of containers and confirms assessment is complete on making the order.

A writ petition was maintainable where the statutory appeal was not an effective remedy because pre-deposit was required and revision offered no practical alternative, so Article 226 relief remained available. Assessment under section 10 was complete when the order was made within time, not when it was communicated, and later service did not affect completion. Tins sold with exempt kerosene were taxable as separate goods because the goods were sold at a higher price and the exemption for kerosene could not be extended beyond its strict terms. The challenge therefore failed on all substantive grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the petitioner could maintain the writ petition without first exhausting the appellate or revisional remedies under the sales tax law; (ii) whether the assessment under section 10 was complete only when the assessment order was communicated to the assessee; and (iii) whether the tins in which exempt kerosene was sold were separately taxable as containers.

Issue (i): whether the petitioner could maintain the writ petition without first exhausting the appellate or revisional remedies under the sales tax law.

Analysis: A writ petition was entertained where an appeal could not be effectively pursued without pre-deposit of tax, and the available revision did not afford a practical alternative remedy. In such circumstances, the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 was held to be available for challenging the legality of the assessment.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection based on non-exhaustion of remedies was overruled in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): whether the assessment under section 10 was complete only when the assessment order was communicated to the assessee.

Analysis: The wording of section 10 was treated as requiring the assessment order to be passed within the prescribed period, not served within that period. The later service of the order did not control the completion of assessment, and collection after assessment was distinguished from the act of assessment itself.

Conclusion: The assessment was held to be complete on the making of the order, not on its communication, and this contention failed.

Issue (iii): whether the tins in which exempt kerosene was sold were separately taxable as containers.

Analysis: The definition of turnover in section 2(q) was construed disjunctively: the words governing payment in respect of a contract qualified supplies in contract transactions and did not control outright sales. On the facts, the kerosene in tins was sold at a higher price than bulk kerosene, showing an implied sale of the tins themselves. The exemption for kerosene could not be extended to the containers, and exemption in a taxing statute was held to be confined strictly to its terms.

Conclusion: The tins were held taxable as separate goods sold for a price, and this contention failed against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The petition was dismissed because the challenge to jurisdiction failed, the assessment was not vitiated on the ground urged, and the container turnover was lawfully brought to tax.

Ratio Decidendi: In a taxing statute, an exemption is confined strictly to the exempted commodity, and where containers are separately sold for a price along with an exempt article, the containers may be taxed as distinct goods; assessment under the relevant provision is completed when the assessment order is made, not when it is communicated.

---