High Court dismisses writ petitions challenging sales tax on casuarina cut, stresses need to exhaust remedies first.

The High Court dismissed two writ petitions seeking a writ of prohibition against the imposition of sales tax on casuarina cut by the petitioner. The court emphasized that the petitioner should have exhausted all available remedies before approaching the court directly, highlighting the need to first raise the issue before the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer. As the petitioner failed to do so, the court found the writ petitions not maintainable and dismissed them without considering the merits of the case. No costs were awarded, emphasizing the importance of following proper legal procedures before seeking extraordinary relief through writ petitions.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether writ of prohibition can be issued against the imposition of sales tax on casuarina cut by the petitionerRs.
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief as prayed for in the writ petitionsRs.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with two writ petitions filed seeking a writ of prohibition against the imposition of sales tax on casuarina cut by the petitioner. The petitioner argued that casuarina does not fall under the definition of "timber" as per the contract with the Forest Department, and thus, should not be taxed as timber. The Government Advocate contended that casuarina is used for construction purposes, making it taxable. The court emphasized that the petitioner did not exhaust all remedies before approaching the High Court directly, stating that the matter should have been raised before the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer first. The court dismissed the writ petitions, highlighting that extraordinary jurisdiction can only be invoked after exhausting all available remedies under the law.

2. The court held that the petitioner's failure to raise the issue before the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer rendered the writ petitions not maintainable. It stressed that all remedies under the law must be exhausted before seeking relief through a writ of prohibition. The court emphasized that the petitioner should have pursued the available remedies before approaching the High Court directly. As a result, the court dismissed the writ petitions without delving into the merits of the case, indicating that the petitioner must seek redress through the appropriate forums before seeking relief through a writ petition. The court did not award any costs in the matter, underscoring the importance of following the proper legal procedures before seeking extraordinary relief through writ petitions.

---