Sales tax classification of electro cardiograph fixed under entry 41-A; alternate remedy objection rejected and writ relief restored.

Electro cardiograph was held to fall within entry 41-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and not entry 41-C, because the controlling precedent on classification governed the item and made the revised assessment unsustainable. The Court also rejected the objection that writ relief should be denied for availability of alternate statutory remedies, holding that such remedies did not justify refusal of writ jurisdiction after the classification issue had been decided in favour of the assessee. The writ appeals were allowed, the dismissal of the writ petitions was set aside, and the assessment orders treating the item under entry 41-C were left without effect.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether electro cardiograph fell under entry 41-A of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, or under entry 41-C; (ii) whether the writ petitions should be rejected on the ground that other statutory remedies were available.

Issue (i): Whether electro cardiograph fell under entry 41-A of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, or under entry 41-C.

Analysis: The item had already been considered in the connected tax matter and, applying the controlling legal position noticed there, the Court held that the article could only be treated as falling within entry 41-A. The revised assessment treating it as an electronic system under entry 41-C was therefore inconsistent with that view.

Conclusion: Electro cardiograph was held to fall under entry 41-A alone, and not under entry 41-C.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petitions should be rejected on the ground that other statutory remedies were available.

Analysis: Once the classification issue had been answered in favour of the assessee, the Court found it neither fair nor proper to drive the assessee to alternate remedies. The existence of statutory remedies did not justify dismissal of the writ petitions in the circumstances of the case.

Conclusion: The objection based on alternate statutory remedy was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The writ appeals succeeded, the dismissal of the writ petitions was set aside, and the assessment orders treating the item under entry 41-C did not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the legal classification of an item is already governed by the controlling precedent, a contrary reassessment cannot be sustained, and the existence of alternate statutory remedies will not warrant refusal of writ relief when the issue has been conclusively determined in favour of the assessee.

---