Writ jurisdiction cannot bypass statutory tax remedies; situs of sale tied to goods' location was upheld as valid

A fiscal statute providing a complete hierarchy of appeal, revision and reference cannot ordinarily be bypassed by invoking writ jurisdiction to reopen factual findings; the proper course is to pursue the statutory machinery, and the High Court should not act as an appellate forum on facts. The Explanation to section 2(12) of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947, which treated a sale as occurring in Assam when the goods were within the Province at the time of contract, was held to be a valid legislative device for fixing the situs of sale and not beyond provincial competence. The assessments remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court should, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, reopen findings of fact recorded by the sales-tax authorities when the statute provided a specific machinery of appeal, revision, and reference on questions of law; (ii) whether the Explanation to section 2(12) of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947 was beyond the legislative competence of the Provincial Legislature.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court should, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, reopen findings of fact recorded by the sales-tax authorities when the statute provided a specific machinery of appeal, revision, and reference on questions of law.

Analysis: The Act created a complete hierarchy for determination of tax liability, with factual questions entrusted to the assessing and revisional authorities and questions of law open to reference to the High Court. The petitioners did not pursue the statutory route for reference under section 32 and instead invoked Article 226 to challenge factual findings that had not been properly raised before the subordinate authorities. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary and is ordinarily not used to bypass an efficacious statutory remedy or to function as an appellate forum on facts.

Conclusion: The challenge to the factual findings was not entertainable in writ jurisdiction, and the statutory machinery could not be bypassed.

Issue (ii): Whether the Explanation to section 2(12) of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947 was beyond the legislative competence of the Provincial Legislature.

Analysis: The Explanation treated a sale as occurring in the Province when the goods were actually within Assam at the time of the contract, irrespective of the place where the contract was made. This was a legislative device for locating the sale for purposes of sales tax and did not transgress the limits of provincial power. The provision did not amount to an impermissible export levy or exceed legislative competence merely because it fixed the situs of the sale by reference to the location of the goods.

Conclusion: The Explanation was within legislative competence and was not ultra vires.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed because the factual challenge was not available in the chosen proceeding and the constitutional attack on the charging definition was rejected; the tax assessments were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a fiscal statute provides a complete procedure for determining tax liability and for raising questions of law by reference, writ jurisdiction should not be used to bypass that machinery or to re-agitate questions of fact; a provision fixing the situs of sale for sales-tax purposes by reference to the location of the goods within the taxing territory is a valid legislative choice within competence.

---