Writ remedy and garment classification in sales tax turn on transaction-specific analysis, not blanket labels or appellate availability.

Writ jurisdiction may be invoked despite alternative departmental remedies because exhaustion of statutory appeals is a rule of discretion, not an absolute bar. Garments stitched to a customer's measurements and order were treated as made to order, not ready-made garments prepared in advance for immediate sale, though they could still fall within the residual category of other goods depending on the transaction. Tax assessments could not be made by a blanket classification; each transaction had to be examined to determine whether cloth was separately sold or whether the arrangement was a composite contract, with due regard to the statutory definitions of sale and sale price. The impugned assessments were quashed and remitted for fresh consideration transaction by transaction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether writ petitions challenging tax assessments were maintainable despite the availability of departmental appellate remedies; (ii) whether garments stitched by the dealer to a customer's measurements and order were "ready-made garments" or goods made to order and, if not, whether they were taxable as "other goods"; (iii) whether the assessments could stand without examining the true nature of each transaction and the statutory definitions of sale and sale price.

Issue (i): Whether writ petitions challenging tax assessments were maintainable despite the availability of departmental appellate remedies.

Analysis: The rule requiring exhaustion of statutory remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion, not a bar to jurisdiction. The availability of an appellate or revisional remedy does not by itself prevent the High Court from entertaining a petition where the legal issues warrant consideration, particularly in exceptional cases and where the Court considers it appropriate to clarify the law for the benefit of the parties and the administration.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were maintainable and were rightly entertained despite the pending departmental appeals.

Issue (ii): Whether garments stitched by the dealer to a customer's measurements and order were "ready-made garments" or goods made to order and, if not, whether they were taxable as "other goods".

Analysis: The expression "ready-made garment" was held to mean garments prepared in advance for sale in standard form and available for immediate purchase, not garments prepared after a customer selects cloth and places an order for stitching to individual measurements. Garments prepared in that manner were treated as garments made to order. Since they were movable property and fell within the statutory definition of goods, they were not assessable as ready-made garments, but they could fall within the residual taxable category of "other goods" under the Schedule.

Conclusion: Such stitched garments were not ready-made garments; they were goods made to order and were liable to consideration under the head of other goods, depending on the nature of the transaction.

Issue (iii): Whether the assessments could stand without examining the true nature of each transaction and the statutory definitions of sale and sale price.

Analysis: The Court held that the assessment could not proceed by any rule of thumb. Each transaction had to be examined to see whether the cloth was sold separately before the tailoring work, or whether the entire dealing formed one composite contract for preparation of a garment. The statutory definitions of sale and sale price required attention to whether property in goods passed by separate agreement and to the labour element in a contract for preparation of movable property. The assessing authority had failed to account for these determining factors and for the possibility of exemption in respect of cloth separately sold under the exempt categories in Schedule III.

Conclusion: The assessments were unsustainable as made and had to be set aside and reconsidered afresh transaction by transaction.

Final Conclusion: The petitions succeeded to the extent that the impugned assessments were quashed and the matters were sent back for fresh assessment in accordance with law and the observations recorded.

Ratio Decidendi: In sales tax matters, a garment stitched to a customer's order and measurements is not a ready-made garment, and assessment must turn on the true character of each transaction under the statutory definitions of sale and sale price rather than on a blanket classification.

---