Petitioner's Appeal Dismissed for Failure to Exhaust Statutory Remedy

The court held that the petitioner could not prosecute the petition against the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax's order at this stage, as the petitioner had another remedy available under section 22 of the Sales Tax Act, which had not been exhausted. The court emphasized that the previous judgment directing the petitioner to exhaust remedies was binding, and the petitioner could not argue otherwise. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the remarks in another case did not affect the current decision, and the petitioner was bound to follow the directives in the previous judgment regarding exhausting remedies.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to prosecute the petition against the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Sales TaxRs.
2. Whether the petitioner has already been directed to exhaust its remedies against the impugned order under section 22 of the Sales Tax Act in a previous judgmentRs.
3. Whether the remarks in a previous judgment affect the current decision regarding the exhaustion of remediesRs.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a petition against an order of the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, claiming that certain orders be quashed. A preliminary objection was raised by the State, arguing that the petitioner had filed a second appeal before the Commissioner of Sales Tax, which was pending. The court noted that the petitioner was ordered in a previous proceeding to exhaust remedies against the impugned order under section 22 of the Sales Tax Act. The court held that the objection raised by the State must prevail, as the petitioner had another remedy available, and the petition could not be prosecuted at this stage.

2. In a previous judgment, it was observed that the petitioner must exhaust the remedy under section 22 and had already filed an appeal to the Commissioner. The court emphasized that the order in the previous petition was inter partes and binding upon the petitioner. The court concluded that the petitioner cannot now argue that the remedy was not equally efficacious, as the matter had already been decided in the previous judgment. The court dismissed the petitioner's argument that remarks in another case affected the decision, stating that the clear decision in the previous judgment must be followed.

3. The court further discussed the remarks made in a previous case and clarified that those remarks did not affect the decision in the current matter. The court highlighted that the reasons given in the previous judgment became part of the order in the current case, and the petitioner was bound by the order to exhaust its remedies as directed. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition based on the previous judgment and ordered that there be no costs. The petition was ultimately dismissed, emphasizing the importance of following the directives given in the previous judgment regarding exhausting remedies.

---