Alternative statutory remedy limits Article 226, while sugar-based commercial goods were held taxable, not exempt sweetmeats.

Where a taxing statute provides a complete appellate, revisional and reference mechanism, the High Court should ordinarily decline Article 226 intervention and require the assessee to pursue the statutory remedies, especially when no challenge is made to the vires of the law. On classification, Misri, Batasa, Makhana, Ola and sugar toys made from sugar were held to be commercial products taxable under the Act, and not exempt as deshi sweetmeats in the Schedule. Tax paid on sugar as raw material did not extend exemption to the finished goods, which were to be understood in their ordinary commercial sense.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court should exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 despite the availability of appeal, revision, and reference under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954; (ii) Whether Misri, Batasa, Makhana, Ola and sugar toys prepared from sugar were liable to sales tax or exempt as deshi sweetmeats under the Schedule to the Act.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court should exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 despite the availability of appeal, revision, and reference under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954.

Analysis: The assessment had already been made under the Act, and the statute provided a complete machinery of appeal under section 13, revision under section 14(2), and reference to the High Court under section 15. The remedy under Article 226 was treated as discretionary, and the existence of statutory remedies was held to be a strong reason against interference at an intermediate stage. The Court distinguished the Supreme Court decision under Article 32 and followed its earlier view that the writ jurisdiction should not be used to short-circuit the statutory process, particularly where the vires of the taxing law was not challenged.

Conclusion: The writ remedy was held not to be available at that stage, and the preliminary objection based on alternative remedy succeeded.

Issue (ii): Whether Misri, Batasa, Makhana, Ola and sugar toys prepared from sugar were liable to sales tax or exempt as deshi sweetmeats under the Schedule to the Act.

Analysis: The Court held that the articles were not merely sugar because they were prepared commercial products and could not escape taxation merely because tax had been paid on the sugar used as raw material. The Court also rejected the claim that they were deshi sweetmeats, observing that such goods would not ordinarily be so understood in common parlance and therefore did not fall within the exempted entry in the Schedule.

Conclusion: The articles were held to be taxable and not exempt under the Schedule.

Final Conclusion: The applications failed both on maintainability and on merits, and the Court declined to interfere in its extraordinary jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessment order under a taxing statute is assailable through an adequate statutory appellate and revisional framework, the High Court will ordinarily decline to exercise Article 226 jurisdiction to bypass that machinery; goods manufactured from sugar are not exempt merely because tax was paid on the raw material, and exemption entries are construed according to their ordinary commercial meaning.

---