Sales tax appeals within the departmental hierarchy are valid, and Article 226 relief was refused on disputed factual assessment findings.

Rule 74 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Rules was upheld as intra vires because the Act authorised delegation and rule-making on the forum and manner of appeals, and an appeal within the departmental hierarchy was consistent with that scheme. Relief under Article 226 was refused because the assessment turned on disputed facts, the taxing authority had recorded reasons for rejecting exemption claims, and certiorari does not permit the High Court to act as a court of appeal or fresh fact-finder where an adequate statutory remedy exists. The assessment and appellate structure were left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether rule 74 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Rules, which provides appeals from a Commercial Tax Officer to the Assistant Commissioner and onwards within the departmental hierarchy, is ultra vires the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act. (ii) Whether relief under Article 226 should be granted to upset the sales tax assessment on the grounds of alleged exemption claims and inter-State sales turnover.

Issue (i): Whether rule 74 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Rules, which provides appeals from a Commercial Tax Officer to the Assistant Commissioner and onwards within the departmental hierarchy, is ultra vires the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act.

Analysis: The statutory scheme vested taxing powers in the Commissioner and other assisting officers, permitted delegation under the Act, and expressly authorised rules regulating the forum and manner of appeals against assessments. The appellate structure did not equate the delegate and the appellate authority as the same person in law, but created an internal hierarchy for administration and review. An appeal from the delegate to the superior authority was consistent with the statute and its rule-making power.

Conclusion: Rule 74 was held to be valid and intra vires.

Issue (ii): Whether relief under Article 226 should be granted to upset the sales tax assessment on the grounds of alleged exemption claims and inter-State sales turnover.

Analysis: The assessment turned on disputed facts and the record showed reasons given by the taxing authority for rejecting the exemption claims. A writ court in certiorari does not function as a court of appeal or a primary fact-finding forum, and the existence of an adequate statutory remedy weighed against interference. On the material before the Court, the factual findings were not shown to be unsupported by evidence or otherwise warranting supervisory correction.

Conclusion: No writ relief was granted against the assessment, and the challenge to the exemption and turnover findings failed.

Final Conclusion: The assessment and the departmental appellate scheme were left undisturbed, and the application was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ of certiorari under Article 226 does not permit the High Court to undertake fresh fact-finding where the statute provides an adequate appellate machinery, and a rule authorising appeals within a delegated administrative hierarchy is valid if it is supported by the Act and the rule-making power.

---