Edible oil classification and alternate remedy barred writ relief over crude rice bran oil tax treatment.

Crude rice bran oil was held not to qualify as an edible oil for concessional inter-State sales tax, because the applicable food standards showed it became fit for human consumption only after refining; the dealer also failed to establish that the oil sold was refined, so the general tax rate applied. The writ petition was rejected as the assessment order was appealable and an effective statutory remedy existed before the appellate authorities and Tribunal. The departmental communication of 4 February 1982 was not quashed because it had no force of law, was not binding on the assessing authority, and was not shown to have formed the basis of the assessment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether rice bran oil sold in crude form was an edible oil entitled to concessional inter-State sales tax under the notification issued under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. (ii) Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act. (iii) Whether the departmental communication dated 4 February 1982 had to be quashed.

Issue (i): Whether rice bran oil sold in crude form was an edible oil entitled to concessional inter-State sales tax under the notification issued under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Analysis: The notification granted the concessional rate only to edible oils. The definition and standards in Rule 5 and item A.17.23 of Appendix B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 showed that rice bran oil is fit for human consumption only after refining and that crude oil is not so fit. The fact that a specified percentage of rice bran oil could be used in manufacture of edible vegetable oil products did not make crude rice bran oil itself edible. The burden to prove that the oil sold was refined and therefore edible lay on the petitioner, and no such foundation was laid.

Conclusion: Crude rice bran oil was not entitled to the concessional rate and was taxable at the general rate.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act.

Analysis: The assessment order was appealable and a further appeal lay to the Sales Tax Tribunal. The departmental communication was not binding on the assessing or appellate authorities, and the Tribunal constituted an independent forum. The existence of a statutory appellate hierarchy therefore provided an effective and meaningful remedy.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in the presence of an adequate alternative remedy.

Issue (iii): Whether the departmental communication dated 4 February 1982 had to be quashed.

Analysis: The communication had no force of law and was not binding on the Assessing Authority. The assessment order did not rely upon or refer to it, so the petitioner had no sustainable grievance against that communication.

Conclusion: The communication was not liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the assessment and the departmental communication failed, and the writ petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of concessional sales tax, an oil is edible only if it is fit for human consumption in the form sold, and the existence of a statutory appeal ordinarily bars writ relief where the impugned order is otherwise appealable.

---