Mandamus requires a clear legal right and statutory duty; no dealer's right to demand clarification under section 3-A.

Section 3-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 empowers the State Government and the Commissioner to issue administrative instructions to subordinate authorities, but it does not give a dealer a corresponding right to demand a clarification or impose a duty on the Commissioner to entertain such an application. A writ of mandamus is available only where there is a clear legal right in the applicant and a correlative statutory duty on the public authority. On that basis, the requested mandamus was held not maintainable and the relief was refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ of mandamus could be issued to compel the Commissioner to dispose of the petitioner's application seeking clarification under section 3-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957.

Analysis: Section 3-A of the Act empowers the State Government and the Commissioner to issue instructions to subordinate authorities for carrying out the Act. Those powers are administrative and are to be exercised at the instance of the authorities themselves. The provision does not confer on a dealer any right to demand a clarification of the kind sought, nor does it impose a corresponding duty on the Commissioner to entertain or dispose of such an application. In the absence of a legal right in the petitioner and a correlative duty in the Commissioner, mandamus was not available.

Conclusion: The relief sought was not maintainable and was rightly refused.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed because the petitioner had no statutory entitlement to compel the Commissioner to issue the requested clarification under the writ jurisdiction of the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ of mandamus will not lie unless the applicant establishes a clear legal right and a corresponding statutory duty on the public authority to act.

---