Writ jurisdiction despite alternative remedy and commercial commodity test shape sales tax classification under concessional notifications.

Writ jurisdiction was held maintainable despite an alternative statutory remedy because the controversy involved a recurring question of law and the impugned departmental circular could affect independent decision-making. In construing the sales tax notifications for "metals and alloys", rolled products and extrusions made from ingots or billets were treated as distinct commercial commodities and therefore outside that description, while aluminium alloy ingots, wire bars and billets remained covered. The position of properzi redraw rods could not be decided on the existing record and was sent for further factual inquiry. Tax collected at a higher rate from purchasers did not affect the assessee's legal entitlement to relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition should be entertained despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy in view of the impugned departmental circular and the nature of the controversy. (ii) Whether aluminium products manufactured by the assessee, namely cast products, rolled products and extrusions, fell within the description of "metals and alloys" in the sales tax notifications, and whether properzi redraw rods required further factual inquiry.

Issue (i): The availability of an appellate remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction in every case. Where the departmental circular had directed the subordinate taxing authorities to follow a particular interpretation, the court treated the controversy as fit for writ interference because the issue was one of law, had recurring effect, and the authorities acting under administrative control might not decide independently.

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

Issue (ii): In construing the notifications granting concessional tax on "metals and alloys", the court applied the principle that a manufacturing process which brings into existence a new commercial commodity takes the goods out of the original description. Rolled products and extrusions, being manufactured from ingots or billets, were treated as distinct commercial commodities and not as metals and alloys. Aluminium alloy ingots, wire bars and billets were found to continue within the description. As to properzi redraw rods, the record did not establish whether the intermediate stage was itself a commercial commodity, so the matter required further factual examination by the Sales Tax Officer.

Conclusion: Rolled products and extrusions were held not to fall within "metals and alloys", aluminium alloy ingots, wire bars and billets were held to fall within that description, and the question regarding properzi redraw rods was remitted for reconsideration on evidence.

Issue (iii): Whether the assessee was disentitled to relief because it had collected tax from purchasers at a higher rate.

Conclusion: The court held that tax liability depends on law and not on the amount collected from purchasers, and this did not bar relief.

Final Conclusion: The assessment was interfered with only to the extent indicated, and the matter was sent back for limited reconsideration on the classification of properzi redraw rods.

Ratio Decidendi: A manufactured product that emerges as a new commercial commodity after processing does not remain within the original tax description, and writ relief may be granted notwithstanding an alternative remedy where the dispute raises a recurring legal issue affected by an impermissible administrative direction.

---