Alternative statutory remedy and limitation principles control tax writ jurisdiction, while broad revisional power and copy-time exclusion were upheld.
An efficacious statutory appeal should ordinarily be pursued in a tax dispute involving mixed questions of law and fact, and Article 226 jurisdiction will not be exercised to bypass the statutory remedy or limitation consequences. The petitioner was therefore expected to seek relief before the Sales Tax Tribunal, including condonation if available, and writ relief was declined. The revisional provision was construed broadly to allow a State revision application, and the prescribed form could not narrow that substantive power. On limitation, the time required to obtain a copy was excluded in computing time under the special law because there was no express exclusion, so the limitation objection to the revision failed.
Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition should be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India despite the existence of an alternative statutory remedy before the Sales Tax Tribunal. (ii) Whether the departmental revision before the Deputy Commissioner was maintainable and whether the limitation objection to the revision before the Board of Revenue could be sustained.
Issue (i): Whether the writ petition should be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India despite the existence of an alternative statutory remedy before the Sales Tax Tribunal.
Analysis: The availability of an alternative statutory appeal to the Tribunal was material because the dispute involved mixed questions of law and fact and the Tribunal had full appellate powers to examine the matter independently. The Court also noted that a litigant should not be permitted to avoid the effect of limitation by invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction after the legislature has provided an appropriate remedy. In the circumstances, the petitioner was expected to pursue the statutory appeal and seek condonation, if available, before the Tribunal.
Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertainable, and the Court declined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226.
Issue (ii): Whether the departmental revision before the Deputy Commissioner was maintainable and whether the limitation objection to the revision before the Board of Revenue could be sustained.
Analysis: The revisional provision was held to be wide enough to permit a revision application by the State, and the form prescribed under the rules could not cut down the scope of the substantive revisional power. On limitation, the Court applied the principle that, in the absence of express exclusion, the time requisite for obtaining a copy could be excluded under the Indian Limitation Act in computing limitation under a special law, and the objection based on limitation was therefore unsustainable.
Conclusion: The departmental revision was maintainable, and the limitation objection failed.
Final Conclusion: The Court refused to interfere in writ jurisdiction and left the parties to pursue the statutory appellate remedy, while upholding the maintainability of the departmental revisional proceeding and rejecting the limitation objection.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory appeal is available in a tax matter involving disputed facts, extraordinary writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be exercised, and the statutory time-exclusion principle applies unless expressly excluded by the special law.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
