Departmental appeal authorisation and alternative remedy rule clarified; State Representative could sign appeals and writ interference remained available.

Section 23(3)(a) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 and rule 52(1)(b) of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947 were read to permit a memorandum of appeal on behalf of the State Government to be signed and verified by the Commissioner of Sales Tax or another officer authorised by him. On that basis, the State Representative, being under the Commissioner's administrative control and duly notified, was treated as an authorised officer and the second appeals were held maintainable. The existence of reference applications was not an absolute bar to writ interference under Articles 226 and 227, because alternative remedy only affects discretion. The Tribunal's order was quashed and the appeals restored for expeditious decision.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the State Representative was competent to sign and verify memoranda of second appeals on behalf of the State Government under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 and the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947. (ii) Whether the existence of reference applications as an alternative remedy barred interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the State Representative was competent to sign and verify memoranda of second appeals on behalf of the State Government under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 and the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947.

Analysis: Section 23(3)(a) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 permits the State Government to prefer an appeal in the prescribed manner, and section 29(2)(r) authorises rules prescribing the manner and authority for such appeals. Rule 52(1)(b) specifically provides that a memorandum of appeal on behalf of the State Government may be signed and verified by the Commissioner of Sales Tax or another officer authorised by him. Reading this with rule 2(a)(ii) and rule 2(iii), the State Representative, being an officer of the department under the Commissioner's administrative control and appointed to act on behalf of the State Government before the Tribunal, falls within the expression authorised officer. The Commissioner had in fact issued a notification authorising the State Representative to sign and verify such memoranda.

Conclusion: The State Representative was competent to sign and verify the memoranda of appeals, and the second appeals were maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the existence of reference applications as an alternative remedy barred interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction. It is only a factor affecting discretion. Where the Tribunal declines to exercise jurisdiction because of an erroneous view of law apparent on the face of the record, interference under Articles 226 and 227 remains available, particularly where prompt disposal of the pending appeals is required.

Conclusion: The alternative remedy did not bar interference, and the preliminary objection to maintainability was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's order was quashed, the second appeals were restored as pending before it, and the Tribunal was directed to decide them expeditiously.

Ratio Decidendi: A rule made under the taxing statute prescribing who may sign and verify departmental appeals prevails as a special procedural provision, and writ jurisdiction is not excluded merely because an alternative statutory remedy exists.

---