Writ jurisdiction and dealer status under sales tax law turn on legal authority and independent business activity, not mere land ownership.

Writ jurisdiction remained available despite a statutory reference remedy under the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947 where the impugned notice and directions were said to be without authority of law, and the existence of an alternative procedure did not bar challenge to the Act's applicability on the facts. The petitioner, who disposed of standing sal trees from his estate, was not carrying on an independent business of selling or supplying goods and therefore was not a "dealer" under section 2(3). Mere sale of produce or timber from one's own land, without a separate commercial enterprise, does not attract dealer status or sales tax liability.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petition was barred because the petitioner ought to have pursued the remedy under the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947 before invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether the petitioner, by disposing of standing sal trees from his estate, was carrying on the business of selling or supplying goods so as to be a "dealer" under section 2(3) of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947.

Issue (i): Whether the petition was barred because the petitioner ought to have pursued the remedy under the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947 before invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The availability of a statutory reference procedure did not exclude writ jurisdiction where the impugned notice and consequential directions were alleged to be without authority of law. A person cannot be compelled to obey a notice that is prima facie binding but may ultimately be ultra vires, merely because an alternative procedure exists under the taxing statute. The existence of a reference remedy was therefore not an adequate answer to a challenge that the Act itself, on the facts, did not apply to the petitioner.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection was rejected and the writ petition was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner, by disposing of standing sal trees from his estate, was carrying on the business of selling or supplying goods so as to be a "dealer" under section 2(3) of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947.

Analysis: The definition of "dealer" required a person to carry on the business of selling or supplying goods. The governing test was not mere sale, but the carrying on of an independent business having the attributes of a continuous organised trade or occupation. On the facts, the petitioner merely disposed of standing trees grown on his zamindari as part of his proprietary rights; the purchasers themselves undertook felling, processing and marketing. There was no purchase, manufacture, or separate commercial enterprise on the petitioner's part, and the activity was inextricably connected with ownership of the land rather than with an independent trading business.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not a "dealer" under section 2(3) and was not liable to be registered or taxed on these transactions.

Final Conclusion: The impugned action under the Sales Tax Act could not be sustained against the petitioner, and the authorities were restrained from proceeding on the footing that he was liable as a dealer in respect of the transactions in question.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere occasional or periodic sale of produce or timber from one's own land does not constitute carrying on the business of selling or supplying goods unless there is an independent commercial activity distinct from ownership of the land.

---