Electric energy as goods supports dealer registration where no efficacious statutory remedy exists against refusal.

Writ jurisdiction was held competent because no efficacious statutory appeal or revision was available against refusal of registration, so the alternative-remedy objection failed. Electric energy was treated as movable property falling within the statutory definition of "goods" under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, supported by its capability of storage, transmission, measurement, and theft, as well as the statutory scheme treating electricity as tax-free goods. On that basis, the refusal to register the applicant as a dealer was unsustainable and the registration application was to be considered in line with that legal position.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ petition was barred by an alternative statutory remedy, and (ii) whether electric energy is "goods" within the meaning of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act so as to entitle the petitioner to registration as a dealer.

Issue (i): whether the writ petition was barred by an alternative statutory remedy

Analysis: The statutory provisions relied upon by the respondents did not provide an appeal or revision against refusal of registration under the Central Sales Tax Act. The remedies under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act were directed to assessment-related matters and did not cover refusal of registration. As no efficacious statutory remedy was available for the grievance raised, recourse to writ jurisdiction was held to be competent.

Conclusion: The objection based on alternative remedy was rejected.

Issue (ii): whether electric energy is "goods" within the meaning of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act so as to entitle the petitioner to registration as a dealer

Analysis: The definition of "goods" under both enactments extended to all kinds of movable property other than specified exclusions. Reading this definition with the General Clauses Acts, movable property meant property of every description except immovable property. Electric energy was treated as capable of storage, transmission, measurement, and theft, and therefore as movable property. The statutory scheme also supported this view, since electricity was specifically treated as tax-free goods in the Punjab General Sales Tax Act. The earlier administrative view to the contrary was not accepted.

Conclusion: Electric energy was held to be goods within both enactments, and the petitioner was held entitled to registration as a dealer.

Final Conclusion: The refusal to register the petitioner was unsustainable, and the impugned orders were quashed with a direction to consider the registration application in accordance with the legal position that electric energy falls within the expression "goods".

Ratio Decidendi: Electric energy, being movable property with the incidents of saleability and transfer, falls within the statutory definition of "goods" unless expressly excluded, and a writ lies where no efficacious statutory remedy exists against refusal of registration.

---