Subsequent sale exemption under CST law applies to transfer during movement of goods; alternative remedy does not bar writ relief.

A subsequent sale effected during the movement of goods by transfer of the relevant document of title was treated as exempt under section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, because the first sale had already occasioned movement from West Bengal to Kerala and the later transfer fell within the statutory scheme. The Court also stated that alternative statutory remedy does not bar writ relief where the taxing authority acts without jurisdiction or misconstrues the statute. On that basis, the writ was maintainable and the challenge to the order directing issuance of declaration forms failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the sale by the first buyer to the Kerala dealer was a subsequent sale exempt under section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956; (ii) Whether the existence of an alternative statutory remedy barred interference under article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the sale by the first buyer to the Kerala dealer was a subsequent sale exempt under section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Analysis: The Court examined the nature of the transaction under section 3 and section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, together with the definition of sale and the movement of goods under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. It held that the first sale occasioned movement of goods from West Bengal to Kerala and that the later transfer to the Kerala dealer took place during the movement by transfer of the relevant document of title. The demand for additional tax was based on a misappreciation of law, and the authorities were not justified in insisting on further proof inconsistent with the admitted documents and the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The transaction qualified as a subsequent sale exempt from tax under section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Issue (ii): Whether the existence of an alternative statutory remedy barred interference under article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The Court held that the rule of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar and does not prevent writ relief where the authority has acted without jurisdiction or has misconstrued the statutory provisions. Since the dispute turned on legal interpretation and the impugned order suffered from jurisdictional error, the writ petition was maintainable.

Conclusion: The availability of an alternative remedy did not bar writ relief.

Final Conclusion: The appellate challenge failed, and the order directing issuance of the declaration forms was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A sale is exempt under section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 when it is a true subsequent sale effected during the movement of goods by transfer of the relevant document of title, and writ interference is permissible where the taxing authority acts on a misconstruction of the statute and thereby commits a jurisdictional error.

---