Statutory appellate remedy bars writ review of tax assessments where constitutional challenge is untenable and appeal is available.

Explanation 3B to section 2(xxi) and section 5(1)(iii) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act was treated as merely reflecting the substance of article 366(29A)(d), so the statutory challenge and the challenge to the Forty-sixth Amendment were rejected as no longer open in light of earlier Supreme Court authority. Assessment-related objections were stated to be examinable by the statutory appellate authority under section 34, and writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be used to test tax assessments on merits where an efficacious appeal is available. The assessee was therefore relegated to the appellate remedy, with liberty to pursue appeal and interim relief within time.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the challenge to Explanation 3B to section 2(xxi) and section 5(1)(iii) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, and to the constitutional amendment underlying article 366(29A)(d), was sustainable. (ii) Whether the writ petition challenging the assessment orders was maintainable in view of the statutory appellate remedy under the Act.

Issue (i): Whether the challenge to Explanation 3B to section 2(xxi) and section 5(1)(iii) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, and to the constitutional amendment underlying article 366(29A)(d), was sustainable.

Analysis: Explanation 3B was found to merely incorporate the substance of article 366(29A)(d) without any change. The constitutional challenge to the Forty-sixth Amendment was held to be no longer open in view of the earlier Supreme Court decision upholding that amendment. The provisions of the Act were therefore treated as reflecting the constitutional position.

Conclusion: The constitutional challenge and the challenge to the statutory provisions were rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition challenging the assessment orders was maintainable in view of the statutory appellate remedy under the Act.

Analysis: The assessment-related objections were matters that could be examined by the appellate authority under section 34 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The Court applied the principle that where an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal is available, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked to examine tax assessments on merits, particularly where factual questions are involved.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained on the merits and the petitioner was left to pursue the statutory appeal remedy.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the statutory and constitutional provisions failed, and the assessee was relegated to the appellate forum under the sales tax enactment with liberty to file appeals within time and seek appropriate interim relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory appellate remedy is available under a fiscal enactment, the High Court should ordinarily decline to exercise writ jurisdiction to examine assessment disputes on merits, especially when the constitutional challenge is untenable.

---