Packing charges on sealed goods are not deductible where the tin forms part of the article sold, and writ relief is barred by statutory remedies.

Deduction under rule 9 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules was available only for amounts separately charged as packing or delivery charges. Where the sale was of sealed tins of kerosene, the tin and its contents formed the article sold, so the value of the tins could not be treated as a separate deductible packing charge. The article also states that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was ordinarily not justified where effective statutory remedies of appeal to the Appellate Tribunal and revision to the High Court were available under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. On that reasoning, the packing deduction claim and the writ remedy were both treated as untenable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the value of tins used for selling kerosene in sealed tins was deductible as "charges for packing and delivery" under rule 9 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963. (ii) Whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was unsustainable in view of the statutory remedies of appeal and revision.

Issue (i): Whether the value of tins used for selling kerosene in sealed tins was deductible as "charges for packing and delivery" under rule 9 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963.

Analysis: Deduction under rule 9 was available only where the amount separately charged represented packing or delivery of the goods sold. Where the commodity sold was kerosene itself, packing it in a container before delivery could constitute a deductible packing charge. But where the transaction was a sale of sealed tins of kerosene, the sealed tin with its contents was the article sold, and the value of the packing could not be treated as a separate charge for packing and delivery.

Conclusion: The claim for deduction of the value of the tins was not allowable and the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was unsustainable in view of the statutory remedies of appeal and revision.

Analysis: The appellate order was open to challenge by appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under section 39 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, and thereafter by revision to the High Court under section 41 of the same Act. In the presence of these alternative statutory remedies, invocation of writ jurisdiction was not justified.

Conclusion: The writ petition was unsustainable on the ground of alternate statutory remedy and the issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in entirety, as the packing value of sealed tins was not deductible and the writ remedy was not maintainable in the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the sale is of a packaged article, the cost of the packing that forms part of the very article sold is not a deductible packing charge, and writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be entertained when an effective statutory appeal and revision remedy exists.

---