Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the existence of statutory appeal and revision remedies when departmental instructions had already foreclosed any real relief, and whether the assessment orders and tax collected thereunder were liable to be quashed and refunded.
Analysis: The challenge to maintainability on the ground of alternative remedy failed because the record showed that the departmental stand had been predetermined by instructions directing the assessing authorities to levy sales tax on the relevant preparations. In such a situation, an appeal or revision would be an empty formality, since the appellate and revisional authorities were bound to act consistently with the same instructions. The plea of res judicata was also rejected because the earlier writ petition had not decided the present matter on merits and, in any event, the present petition additionally sought quashing of the assessment orders. The Court therefore found no bar to exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and no reason to compel the petitioners to pursue futile statutory remedies.
Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable, the preliminary objections failed, and the assessment orders were liable to be set aside with refund of the tax collected.