Export purchase exemption and ineffective alternative remedies: branch and head office of one firm were treated as the same entity.

For exemption from gross turnover under section 5(2)(a)(vi) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, a partnership firm's branch and head office were treated as parts of the same legal entity, so purchases made through one office and exports effected through another did not lose their export character where the goods were in fact exported outside India. The text also states that failure to pursue appeal and revision did not bar writ relief when the statutory remedies would have been merely formal and ineffective because the assessment followed higher administrative instructions. On that basis, the assessment order was quashed and writ jurisdiction was treated as maintainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the petitioner-firm was entitled to exclusion from gross turnover of the purchases made for export under section 5(2)(a)(vi) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, notwithstanding the fact that the purchases were made through the Bhatinda branch and the exports were effected through the Bombay head office; and (ii) whether the writ petition was barred because the petitioner had not availed the statutory remedies of appeal and revision under sections 20 and 21 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner-firm was entitled to exclusion from gross turnover of the purchases made for export under section 5(2)(a)(vi) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, notwithstanding the fact that the purchases were made through the Bhatinda branch and the exports were effected through the Bombay head office.

Analysis: A partnership firm has no legal existence apart from the partners composing it, and the existence of branches at different places does not create separate legal entities. The purchases made by the Bhatinda branch and the export effected by the head office formed part of the same business of the firm. Since the cotton was purchased for export and was in fact exported outside India, the mere movement of the goods from the branch office to the head office did not destroy the character of the transaction for the purpose of exemption.

Conclusion: The exemption under section 5(2)(a)(vi) was wrongly denied and the petitioner succeeded on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was barred because the petitioner had not availed the statutory remedies of appeal and revision under sections 20 and 21 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948.

Analysis: Where the assessment was made in accordance with instructions said to have been received from the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, the statutory remedies would have been a mere formality and would not have afforded any effective relief. In such circumstances, failure to pursue appeal or revision did not bar recourse to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

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

Final Conclusion: The assessment order was quashed and the writ petition was allowed, with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: For exemption purposes, a branch and head office of the same partnership firm are not separate legal entities, and the existence of an alternative statutory remedy does not bar writ relief where that remedy is shown to be illusory or ineffective.

---