Alternative remedy and agricultural implements doctrine govern writ maintainability and concessional tax treatment of pumping sets.

A writ petition was held maintainable despite an alternative statutory remedy because the remedy was not efficacious or speedy in the circumstances and the challenge included vires of a statutory provision. On the tax classification issue, water pumping sets were treated as agricultural implements rather than taxable machinery, because irrigation is an integral part of agriculture and the relevant test was their common and direct use in agricultural operations, not exclusive agricultural use. The assessment order was quashed and the matter was directed to be dealt with in accordance with that legal position.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ petition was barred by availability of an alternative remedy under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, and (ii) whether water pumping sets were agricultural implements falling under the concessional notification or machinery taxable at the higher rate.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was barred by availability of an alternative remedy under the U.P. Sales Tax Act

Analysis: The existence of an appellate remedy did not by itself bar writ jurisdiction where the remedy was neither efficacious nor speedy in the circumstances. The pending assessments involved recurring tax liability and serious business hardship, and the challenge also included the vires of a statutory provision, which the sales tax authorities could not decide.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection based on alternative remedy was rejected, and the writ petition was held maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether water pumping sets were agricultural implements falling under the concessional notification or machinery taxable at the higher rate

Analysis: The relevant notifications separately covered agricultural implements at a concessional rate and machinery at a higher rate unless the goods were taxable under another notification. Applying the common and popular meaning of the expression, the Court held that irrigation is an essential part of agriculture and that appliances commonly used and directly connected with irrigation qualify as agricultural implements. Pumping sets were shown to be widely used by farmers for lift irrigation, and the decisive test was not exclusive agricultural use but ordinary and intimate connection with agricultural operations. Earlier contrary decisions were not accepted as laying down the correct law.

Conclusion: Pumping sets were held to be agricultural implements, and their turnover was held taxable under the concessional notification rather than as machinery.

Final Conclusion: The assessment order was quashed and relief was granted to the assessee, with the assessment to be made in accordance with the legal position declared in the judgment.

Ratio Decidendi: An article or appliance qualifies as an agricultural implement if it is commonly and directly used in agricultural operations, even if it has other possible uses, and writ jurisdiction may be invoked despite an alternate remedy where that remedy is not efficacious and the challenge includes a question of vires.

---