1991 (1) TMI 415 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

High Court rules for Revenue, deems original petitions not maintainable. Assessee urged to pursue statutory remedies.

The High Court ruled in favor of the Revenue, setting aside the lower court's decision and declaring the original petitions as not maintainable. The Court ... - Issues Involved:1. Entitlement to the benefit of S.R.O. No. 585/80 and S.R.O. No. 641/81 for lower tax rates.2. Validity of Rule 21(9) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules.3. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.4. Availability and adequacy of alternative statutory remedies.Detailed Analysis:1. Entitlement to the Benefit of S.R.O. No. 585/80 and S.R.O. No. 641/81:The assessee, owning a factory manufacturing rubberized coir, claimed entitlement to lower tax rates on rubber purchases under S.R.O. No. 585/80 and S.R.O. No. 641/81. The original petitions sought a declaration that the assessee is liable to pay purchase tax at the rate of 3% instead of 6%. The learned single Judge ruled in favor of the assessee, declaring the lower tax rate applicable. However, the Revenue contended that the assessee was not entitled to the reduced rate and that the assessments were made in accordance with the law.2. Validity of Rule 21(9) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules:The assessee challenged Rule 21(9) as ultra vires the Act, arguing that provisional assessments could not be made following the omission of Section 18 from the statute. The original petitions sought a declaration that Rule 21(9) was void and unenforceable. The High Court referred to the precedent set in Asoka Oil Mills v. Sales Tax Officer, which upheld the validity of Rule 21(9) despite the deletion of Section 18. The Court found no reason to deviate from this precedent, thus ruling that the challenge to Rule 21(9) was devoid of substance.3. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:The Revenue argued that the assessee had an equally efficacious remedy provided by the statute and that the High Court's discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be invoked. The Court agreed, emphasizing that Article 226 is not meant to circumvent statutory procedures unless extraordinary circumstances exist. The Court cited Supreme Court rulings reinforcing this principle, concluding that the assessee should pursue statutory remedies rather than seeking relief under Article 226.4. Availability and Adequacy of Alternative Statutory Remedies:The Revenue pointed out that the assessee had alternative remedies by way of appeal and revision. The Court noted that the assessee had already filed an appeal against Exhibit P8 and had not demonstrated why the alternative remedies were inadequate. The Court emphasized that the availability of an alternate remedy is a significant factor in deciding whether to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226. The Court concluded that the assessee should pursue the statutory remedies available, including revisions from the provisional assessment orders and the pending appeal.Conclusion:The High Court set aside the judgments of the learned single Judge, ruling that the original petitions were not maintainable. The Court directed the assessee to pursue statutory remedies, including filing revisions within 30 days and pursuing the pending appeal. The Court also urged the Revenue to expedite the final assessment for the year and dispose of the pending appeal expeditiously.Disposition:Writ appeals allowed. Original petitions declared not maintainable. Assessee directed to pursue statutory remedies.