Agricultural implement exemption applies to a tractor belt pulley used for farm operations; writ relief was not barred by alternative remedy.

A belt pulley attachment used with a tractor for agricultural operations such as running a threshing machine or water pump was treated as an agricultural implement under entry 34 of Schedule B to the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, as it stood before the 15 April 1971 amendment, and was therefore not liable to sales tax. The fact that the tractor itself might be taxable did not change the character of the separately sold pulley. A prior adverse Tribunal decision made the statutory remedy ineffective, so the writ court did not decline relief for non-exhaustion of remedies and quashed the assessment to that extent.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a belt pulley attachment was an agricultural implement within the meaning of entry 34 of Schedule B to the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, and therefore not liable to sales tax; (ii) whether the writ petition should be declined for non-exhaustion of statutory remedies.

Issue (i): whether a belt pulley attachment was an agricultural implement within the meaning of entry 34 of Schedule B to the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, and therefore not liable to sales tax.

Analysis: A belt pulley is used with a tractor for agricultural operations such as running a threshing machine or water pump and increases the utility of the tractor for such purposes. The entry, as it stood prior to the amendment on 15 April 1971, exempted all agricultural implements from sales tax. The sale of a belt pulley separately was therefore to be treated as the sale of an agricultural implement, and the fact that a tractor itself might be taxable did not alter the character of the belt pulley.

Conclusion: The belt pulley attachment was held to be an agricultural implement and was not exigible to sales tax; the question was answered in the affirmative, against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the writ petition should be declined for non-exhaustion of statutory remedies.

Analysis: The existence of a prior considered adverse decision of the Sales Tax Tribunal made the statutory remedies ineffective in the circumstances. Since the Court had held that the belt pulley constituted an agricultural implement, the preliminary objection based on alternative remedy did not warrant refusal of relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection was rejected and the writ petition was allowed, with the assessment order quashed so far as it related to the belt pulley.

Final Conclusion: The decision granted relief to the assessee by treating the belt pulley as an exempt agricultural implement and by setting aside the assessment to that extent, while declining to insist on exhaustion of the statutory remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: An article or attachment sold separately may qualify as an agricultural implement where its ordinary use is to aid agricultural operations, and the availability of a statutory remedy may be disregarded in writ jurisdiction when it is not effective in the circumstances.

---