Writ maintainability and garment exemption: alternative remedies did not bar relief, and hosiery articles qualified for sales tax exemption.

The writ petition was maintainable despite available sales tax remedies because the appeal required prior tax deposit and the alternative remedy was ineffective in the circumstances. The exemption notification was construed on the ordinary and wide meaning of "garment"; the use of "any garment" was held to cover articles of clothing or dress intended to cover the human body, and no restriction to outer coverings was read into the text. Hosiery articles were therefore treated as garments and exempt from sales tax if their value did not exceed the notified limit. The assessment was quashed and tax collected on exempt goods was directed to be refunded.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was barred by the availability of statutory remedies under the sales tax law, and (ii) whether the goods manufactured and sold by the petitioner fell within the expression "garment" in the exemption notification so as to be exempt from sales tax.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was barred by the availability of statutory remedies under the sales tax law

Analysis: The existence of appeal, revision and reference remedies did not, by itself, preclude exercise of writ jurisdiction. The appeal lay only on prior deposit of the tax demanded, which made the remedy onerous. Further, the appellate authority had already taken an adverse view in another case on the same question, making the remedy ineffective in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection based on alternative remedy was rejected and the writ petition was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the goods manufactured and sold by the petitioner fell within the expression "garment" in the exemption notification so as to be exempt from sales tax

Analysis: The expression "garment" was construed in its ordinary and wide sense as any article of clothing or dress intended for covering the human body. The notification used the word "any" before "garment", which widened its scope. No limitation was found in the notification to confine the exemption to outer coverings only, and the mode of manufacture as hosiery goods was held immaterial.

Conclusion: The hosiery articles in question were garments within the notification and were exempt from sales tax if their value did not exceed Rs. 4 per piece.

Final Conclusion: The assessment order was quashed and the tax collected on exempt garments was directed to be refunded, with costs awarded to the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: In a writ petition challenging a tax levy, the existence of statutory remedies does not bar relief where the remedy is onerous or ineffective, and an exemption notification must be construed according to the ordinary meaning of the words used without importing restrictive qualifications not found in the text.

---