Statutory tax concession cannot be withdrawn after the prescribed stage; equity cannot override tax liability fixed by law.

A statutory tax concession under section 7 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act depended on the dealer exercising and, where permitted, revoking the option only within the time and manner fixed by the Rules. Rule 15(4-C) allowed revocation only at the stage of filing the return and with the required particulars; once the dealer reiterated the option in the returns, withdrawal was not available later. The Court also stated that equitable considerations and Article 226 relief could not override a tax liability fixed by statute, especially where the statutory appellate remedy was not pursued. The writ challenge therefore failed and the assessment remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a dealer who had exercised the option to be assessed under section 7 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act could withdraw that option after filing returns and seek assessment under the normal provisions; and whether equitable considerations or the availability of Article 226 relief could displace the statutory scheme.

Analysis: Section 7 granted a concession in the matter of tax only on the dealer exercising the option in the manner and within the time permitted by the Rules. Rule 15(4-C) of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 specifically permitted revocation of the provisional option only at the time of filing the return and on furnishing the necessary particulars. The petitioner did not revoke the option within that stage and, instead, reiterated it in the returns. The Court also held that the separate incidence of tax under section 7 and section 5 could not be avoided on equitable grounds, since tax liability cannot be displaced by equity when the statute fixes the charge. The petitioner's failure to pursue the statutory appellate remedy further weakened the claim for writ relief.

Conclusion: The option under section 7 could not be withdrawn after the prescribed stage, and equitable considerations could not relieve the petitioner from the statutory tax burden. The challenge under Article 226 therefore failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was rejected and the assessment under the taxing provisions was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory tax concession conditioned on exercise of an option within a prescribed time cannot be withdrawn after that time has expired, and equitable considerations cannot override a tax liability fixed by the statute and the rules.

---