Broad tax notification language covered woollen carpet yarn, and the writ was maintainable despite an alternative remedy.

An alternative statutory remedy does not automatically bar writ jurisdiction; the court may entertain a petition where the assessment is alleged to be without jurisdiction and contrary to the governing notification. On the tax classification issue, woollen carpet yarn was held to fall within the phrase "all varieties of yarn other than cotton yarn and knitting wool" in the 27 February 1978 notification, because the wording was broad and had to be given its ordinary commercial meaning. The later notification was treated as an independent rate provision, and any ambiguity in the taxing language was resolved in favour of the assessee. The higher tax rate and related penalties were quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was barred by the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under the sales tax enactments. (ii) Whether woollen carpet yarn fell within the notification dated 27 February 1978 covering "all varieties of yarn other than cotton yarn and knitting wool", so as to attract tax at the reduced rate of 2 paise in the rupee and exclude the higher rate applied in the assessment.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was barred by the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under the sales tax enactments.

Analysis: The existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction. The bar is one of discretion, to be applied on the facts of each case. Where the assessment is alleged to be in excess of jurisdiction and contrary to the governing notification, the Court may entertain the petition notwithstanding appellate remedies under the taxing statute.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection based on alternative remedy was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether woollen carpet yarn fell within the notification dated 27 February 1978 covering "all varieties of yarn other than cotton yarn and knitting wool", so as to attract tax at the reduced rate of 2 paise in the rupee and exclude the higher rate applied in the assessment.

Analysis: The expression "all varieties of yarn" was held to be of wide import and to include woollen carpet yarn in its ordinary commercial sense. The subsequent notification was treated as an independent and complete notification governing the rate of tax on yarn, and its plain language was not to be cut down by importing a limitation excluding goods that had been mentioned in an earlier notification. In fiscal interpretation, where the language is plain or reasonably capable of the taxpayer's construction, the beneficial view must be adopted.

Conclusion: Woollen carpet yarn was covered by the notification dated 27 February 1978 and was taxable at 2 paise in the rupee, not at 10 per cent.

Final Conclusion: The assessment order was quashed to the extent it applied the higher rate of tax to woollen carpet yarn and imposed penalties, and the petitioner obtained relief on the substantive tax issue.

Ratio Decidendi: A subsequent tax notification expressed in broad and unqualified language must be given full effect according to its plain commercial meaning, and in case of doubt in a taxing provision the interpretation favourable to the assessee prevails.

---