Writ jurisdiction and disputed tax exemption facts make a sales tax petition premature and non-maintainable.

A writ petition under Article 226 was held premature where exemption from sales tax depended on disputed questions of fact requiring evidence. The claimed benefit under Schedule 'B' read with section 6(1) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 turned on whether the goods sold were of the kind ordinarily prepared by the specified classes of sellers and whether the petitioners themselves fit those descriptions. As those matters were denied and were capable of being examined by the assessing authorities, the petitioners were required to pursue the ordinary statutory remedies before seeking extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The petition was therefore not maintainable at that stage.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable when the petitioners' claim to exemption from sales tax depended on disputed questions of fact requiring evidence and the statutory remedies before the assessing, appellate and revisional authorities had not been exhausted.

Analysis: The petitioners claimed that sales of Indian food preparations and sweets fell within the exempted entries in Schedule 'B' read with section 6(1) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. The entitlement to that benefit depended on proof that the goods sold were of the kind ordinarily prepared by the specified classes of sellers and that the petitioners themselves answered those descriptions. Those matters were factual in nature, were denied by the respondents, and required evidence which the assessing authorities were competent to record. In such circumstances, the ordinary statutory remedies had to be pursued before invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court.

Conclusion: The writ petition was premature and misconceived and was not maintainable at that stage.

---