Sales-tax definition and writ restraint: constitutional competence upheld, while assessment disputes were left to the statutory appeal.

A sales-tax definition that merely reproduces the constitutional concept in article 366(29A)(d) falls within the State Legislature's competence under Entry 54 of List II, so the challenge to sub-clause (iv) of section 2(g) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act failed. The Court also declined writ interference with the assessment and demand notices because the objections involved disputed questions of law, fact, and mixed questions better decided by the statutory authorities. The assessee was therefore relegated to the appellate remedy, which was treated as adequate and comprehensive.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether sub-clause (iv) of the definition of sale in section 2(g) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 was ultra vires for want of legislative competence; (ii) whether the High Court should interfere with the assessment and demand notices in writ jurisdiction or require the assessee to pursue the statutory appeal.

Issue (i): whether sub-clause (iv) of the definition of sale in section 2(g) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 was ultra vires for want of legislative competence.

Analysis: The amended provision was a verbatim reproduction of the constitutional definition inserted by article 366(29A)(d) of the Constitution of India. In view of that constitutional expansion of the meaning of tax on sale or purchase of goods, the State Legislature had competence under Entry 54 of List II to enact the provision. The challenge to validity therefore failed.

Conclusion: The provision was held to be within legislative competence and not ultra vires.

Issue (ii): whether the High Court should interfere with the assessment and demand notices in writ jurisdiction or require the assessee to pursue the statutory appeal.

Analysis: The objections to the assessment turned on disputed questions of law, fact, and mixed questions of law and fact, which the statutory authorities were competent to decide. The Court treated the appellate remedy as efficacious, adequate, and comprehensive, and directed the assessee to work out the challenge before the appellate authority.

Conclusion: Interference in writ jurisdiction was declined and the assessee was relegated to the statutory appellate remedy.

Final Conclusion: The constitutional challenge to the sales-tax definition failed, and the assessment dispute was left to be pursued before the appellate forum instead of in writ proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a sales-tax definition merely reproduces the constitutional concept of a transfer of the right to use goods, the State Legislature has competence to enact it, and disputed assessment questions involving law and fact should ordinarily be left to the statutory appellate remedy rather than being examined in writ jurisdiction.

---