Final assessment orders and disputed transaction facts barred writ relief against a consequential tax demand.

A consequential tax demand could not be quashed in writ jurisdiction when the underlying assessment orders had attained finality and were not challenged through the statutory appellate or revisional remedies. In the absence of any plea that the assessments were void or without jurisdiction, relief was barred. The petitioner also failed to establish that the supply of refreshments fell outside taxable sale under the club-members principle, because the nature of the transaction remained a disputed factual issue that should have been raised before the assessing authorities. The writ petition therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a writ could be maintained to quash a tax demand when the underlying assessment orders had been allowed to become final without challenge. (ii) Whether the petitioner had established that the supply of refreshments was not a taxable sale within the club-members principle.

Issue (i): Whether a writ could be maintained to quash a tax demand when the underlying assessment orders had been allowed to become final without challenge.

Analysis: The demand was only consequential to the assessment orders. Since the assessments themselves were not challenged and had attained finality, the petitioner could not bypass the statutory appellate and revisional remedies and attack only the demand. The absence of any allegation that the assessments were void or without jurisdiction, and the failure to pursue the remedies provided by the statute, barred relief under writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner had established that the supply of refreshments was not a taxable sale within the club-members principle.

Analysis: The factual basis for invoking the club-members principle was not accepted. The pleading proceeded on the footing that the association itself ran the hostel and supplied refreshments, whereas the later version suggested that the hostel was run by students and the association had only general control. The factual controversy should have been raised before the assessing authorities, and the writ court declined to go into that disputed factual position at the stage of challenging the demand alone.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed because the petitioner could not challenge a consequential demand while leaving the final assessment orders untouched, and it also did not establish that the transactions fell outside the taxable concept of sale.

Ratio Decidendi: A consequential tax demand cannot be quashed in writ jurisdiction without first setting aside the final assessment orders through the prescribed statutory remedies, and disputed questions of fact as to the nature of the transaction cannot be reopened at that stage.

---