Tax appellate orders based on extraneous considerations are perverse and can be quashed in writ jurisdiction.

A tax appellate order founded on an irrelevant assumption that dealers should have been notified of a change in definition and enhanced rate, without any statutory basis for such a duty, is perverse in law. Tax liability must be determined from the charging provisions of the statute and the applicable rate, not from extraneous considerations. An order based on irrelevant factors is amenable to interference under Article 226. On that basis, the order was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate order was liable to be interfered with under writ jurisdiction because it rested on an irrelevant and extraneous ground instead of deciding the tax liability according to law.

Analysis: The appellate authority proceeded on the footing that the sales tax department ought to have notified dealers of the change in the definition and enhanced rate of tax, although no provision imposing such a duty was shown. Liability to tax had to be determined by the charging provisions of the statute and the applicable rate, not by considerations extraneous to the Act. An order founded on irrelevant considerations is perverse in law and is amenable to interference under article 226.

Conclusion: The appellate order could not stand and was rightly set aside.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the Board's order was quashed, and the appeal was restored for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A tax appellate order based on extraneous and irrelevant considerations, rather than on the statutory liability and rate applicable under the Act, is perverse and liable to be set aside in writ jurisdiction.

---