Purchase tax liability on alcohol rests with the purchaser; subordinate rules cannot shift it to the seller.

Section 3(1)(c) of the U.P. Sales of Motor Spirit, Diesel Oil and Alcohol Taxation Act, 1939 is construed as fastening purchase tax on alcohol to the purchaser at the first purchase point, not the seller. Rule 15(b)(i) does not alter that statutory incidence; it only permits tax deposit on the purchaser's behalf and cannot expand liability beyond the Act, especially where the rule was not in force at the relevant time. The discussion also notes that an alternative appellate remedy is not an absolute bar to writ relief under Article 226, particularly where it is not shown to be adequate or effective.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, on a proper construction of section 3(1)(c) of the U.P. Sales of Motor Spirit, Diesel Oil and Alcohol Taxation Act, 1939, the liability to pay purchase tax on alcohol rested on the purchaser or on the seller. (ii) Whether the existence of an alternative appellate remedy barred relief under article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether, on a proper construction of section 3(1)(c) of the U.P. Sales of Motor Spirit, Diesel Oil and Alcohol Taxation Act, 1939, the liability to pay purchase tax on alcohol rested on the purchaser or on the seller.

Analysis: The provision levied tax at the point of first purchase of alcohol and expressly made it payable by the purchaser. The language used for alcohol was contrasted with the language applicable to motor spirit and diesel oil, where the tax was payable by the dealer. Rule 15(b)(i) did not shift the incidence of liability to the seller. It only permitted deposit of the tax on behalf of the purchaser. The rule could not enlarge the statutory liability, and in any event the rule relied upon was not in force at the relevant time.

Conclusion: The liability to pay the purchase tax was on the purchaser and not on the seller, and the demand raised against the petitioner was unlawful.

Issue (ii): Whether the existence of an alternative appellate remedy barred relief under article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to writ relief. On the facts, the suggested appeal was not shown to be an adequate or effective remedy when the impugned notice and direction were issued, and the objection was raised only at the stage of arguments after long delay. The Court found no sufficient ground to refuse writ relief on this basis.

Conclusion: The alternative remedy objection was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The impugned demand could not be sustained against the petitioner, and writ relief was granted by quashing the notice and consequential order.

Ratio Decidendi: A taxing statute fixing liability on the purchaser cannot be extended by subordinate rules to fasten that liability on the seller, and the existence of an alternative remedy does not bar writ relief where it is not shown to be adequate or effective.

---