Alternative remedy does not bar writ relief for unauthorised tax, and indivisible works contracts escape sales tax.

A writ petition under Article 226 may still be entertained despite statutory tax remedies where the levy is alleged to be wholly without authority of law, since an alternative remedy does not bar relief in a jurisdictional challenge. A contract for supplying and fixing wooden windows, doors and frames at site under an inclusive price was treated as a single indivisible works contract, not a sale of goods, because property did not pass as movable goods and the materials became part of the immovable property on fixation. The sales tax assessment on that turnover was therefore invalid.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was maintainable despite the availability of statutory remedies under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, where the levy was alleged to be wholly illegal and without authority of law. (ii) Whether the contractor's work of supplying and fixing wooden windows, doors and frames under an inclusive price was an indivisible works contract outside the ambit of sales tax, or a sale of goods liable to tax.

Issue (i): Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was maintainable despite the availability of statutory remedies under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, where the levy was alleged to be wholly illegal and without authority of law.

Analysis: The ordinary rule is that a taxpayer should pursue the remedies provided by the taxing statute before invoking writ jurisdiction. That rule, however, is not absolute. Where the levy is itself alleged to be without legal authority, or where the action goes to the root of jurisdiction and exposes the assessee to an unlawful exaction, the existence of an alternative remedy does not by itself bar relief under Article 226. The Court treated the case as falling within that exceptional category, and also considered the constitutional protection against unauthorised taxation and the infringement of property and trading rights.

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

Issue (ii): Whether the contractor's work of supplying and fixing wooden windows, doors and frames under an inclusive price was an indivisible works contract outside the ambit of sales tax, or a sale of goods liable to tax.

Analysis: The contract was for joinery and painting work in connection with construction, and the materials were to be supplied and fixed at site. On the material before the Court, the arrangement was single and indivisible, not one that could be split into separate contracts for sale of goods and for labour. Until fixation at site, no property in the materials passed as movable goods; after fixation, the items became part of the immovable property by accretion. Applying the settled principle that an indivisible works contract does not amount to a sale of goods, the Court held the assessment could not stand in relation to this turnover.

Conclusion: The contract was not a taxable sale of goods, and the assessment to sales tax on that turnover was invalid.

Final Conclusion: The assessment was quashed to the extent it related to the contract for supplying and fixing the wooden windows, doors and frames, and the petition was allowed with the parties left to bear their own costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court may intervene despite alternative statutory remedies where the tax is alleged to be wholly unauthorised, and an indivisible works contract for supplying and fixing materials at site is not a sale of goods because property does not pass as movable goods and the materials, once fixed, become part of the immovable property by accretion.

---