Statutory remedy bar on writ jurisdiction confirmed where revenue assessments could be challenged by revision and appeal.

Rule 21(9) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules was upheld as valid because the Court found the provisional assessment scheme to be supported by sections 5, 16, 17 and 57(1) of the Act, and not ultra vires merely because section 18 had been deleted. In revenue matters, the Court held that writ jurisdiction under article 226 should ordinarily not be exercised where effective statutory remedies of revision and appeal are available, particularly when an appeal is already pending. As no exceptional circumstances were shown, the writ petitions were held not maintainable and the declarations granted by the single Judge were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether rule 21(9) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules was ultra vires the Act and invalidated provisional assessments made on monthly returns. (ii) Whether writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India could be invoked despite efficacious statutory remedies by way of revision and appeal, including where an appeal against the assessment was already pending.

Issue (i): Whether rule 21(9) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules was ultra vires the Act and invalidated provisional assessments made on monthly returns.

Analysis: The challenge to rule 21(9) was held to be covered by an earlier Division Bench decision which had upheld the validity of the provisional assessment scheme even after deletion of section 18 of the Act. The Court accepted that sections 5, 16, 17 and 57(1) of the Act were sufficient to sustain the rule. The Court therefore declined to treat the provisional assessments as lacking authority merely because they were made under rule 21(9).

Conclusion: The ultra vires challenge failed and the provisional assessment machinery under rule 21(9) was held valid.

Issue (ii): Whether writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India could be invoked despite efficacious statutory remedies by way of revision and appeal, including where an appeal against the assessment was already pending.

Analysis: The Court held that the existence of an adequate statutory remedy was a strong factor against exercise of writ jurisdiction in revenue matters. As the assessee could pursue revisions against provisional assessments and an appeal was already pending against the regular assessment, there were no exceptional circumstances warranting interference under article 226. Entertaining the writ petitions and granting declarations on the merits was therefore held to be improper.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable in view of the available statutory remedies and the pending appeal.

Final Conclusion: The writ appeals succeeded, the declarations granted by the single Judge were set aside, and the assessee was left to pursue the statutory appellate and revisional remedies.

Ratio Decidendi: In revenue matters, where the statute provides effective appellate or revisional remedies, the High Court should not ordinarily exercise writ jurisdiction under article 226 to decide the merits, especially when an appeal is already pending.

---