Alternative remedy, white cement classification, and tax adjustment for mistaken payment shaped the writ relief and credit direction.

A writ petition may be entertained despite an alternative statutory remedy where the dispute raises a pure question of law, the facts are undisputed, and writ intervention avoids duplication. Cement was treated in common parlance as including white cement, though the legislature may still classify different varieties and prescribe different tax treatment if the classification has a rational basis. Tax already paid under a bona fide mistake may be adjusted against a later demand to prevent unjust enrichment and double recovery, subject to proof of payment before the assessing officer.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ petitions were not maintainable on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory remedy; (ii) whether cement and white cement are the same commodity and whether different rates or points of taxation could validly be prescribed for them; and (iii) whether tax paid by the petitioners to their sellers under a mistaken belief was liable to be adjusted against the demand raised.

Issue (i): whether the writ petitions were not maintainable on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory remedy

Analysis: The rule requiring exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of discretion and self-imposed restraint, not one going to jurisdiction. It may be departed from where the controversy is purely one of law, facts are undisputed, and entertaining the writ would avoid multiplicity of proceedings. In the present case, the dispute turned on legal questions, there was no factual controversy requiring investigation, and the matters had remained pending for a long time after admission.

Conclusion: The objection based on alternative remedy was rejected and the writ petitions were held maintainable.

Issue (ii): whether cement and white cement are the same commodity and whether different rates or points of taxation could validly be prescribed for them

Analysis: The expression "cement" was understood in common parlance and commercial sense to include all varieties of cement, including white cement. At the same time, the Court accepted the principle that the legislature may distinguish between different varieties of a commodity and prescribe different rates of tax, provided there is a rational basis for classification. Since the challenge to the validity of different rates was given up, the Court did not finally adjudicate that constitutional question, but held that the contention that such differentiation was inherently impermissible had no substance.

Conclusion: White cement was treated as falling within the broad category of cement, and the blanket challenge to different tax treatment was not accepted.

Issue (iii): whether tax paid by the petitioners to their sellers under a mistaken belief was liable to be adjusted against the demand raised

Analysis: The Court applied the principle that the State should not retain money not legally due to it and relied on the doctrine of unjust enrichment and restitution. Where tax has in fact been paid and deposited with the State under a bona fide mistaken belief, and there is no legal prohibition against adjustment, credit may be given against the later demand so that the assessee is not subjected to double recovery for the same transaction. Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act also supports restitution of money paid by mistake.

Conclusion: The petitioners were held entitled to adjustment of the tax already paid to their sellers, subject to proof of payment before the assessing officer.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment orders were quashed and the matters were remitted to the assessing officer to verify proof of tax payment and allow credit accordingly; the writ petitions were thus substantially allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition on a pure question of law is not barred merely because an alternative statutory remedy exists, and where tax has already been paid under a bona fide mistake and deposited with the State, adjustment may be directed to prevent unjust enrichment and double recovery.

---