Writ interference in tax seizure disputes was refused where facts were disputed and the statute provided an adequate remedy.

Writ interference was considered unwarranted in a tax seizure dispute involving alleged evasion, because the genuineness of transport and sale documents raised factual questions for the statutory authorities, the goods and truck had already been released on security, and the Act provided an effective alternative remedy. The challenge to the seizure and notice was therefore declined. A separate amendment application seeking to question the constitutional validity of the penalty provision was rejected as premature, since it was moved after pleadings were complete and the matter had been argued at length, though the petitioner was left free to raise the vires issue before the appropriate Bench later.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ court should interfere with the seizure of the goods and truck and with the notice proposing action under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954; (ii) Whether the amendment application challenging the constitutional validity of the penalty provision could be entertained at that stage.

Issue (i): Whether the writ court should interfere with the seizure of the goods and truck and with the notice proposing action under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954.

Analysis: The dispute turned on allegations of tax evasion and the genuineness of transport and sale documents. The material before the authority indicated a basis for suspicion and for recording reasons to believe, while the competing versions required factual examination by the statutory authorities. The goods and truck had already been released on security, the petitioner had replied to the notice, and the Act provided an efficacious remedy against any adverse order. In these circumstances, writ interference was unwarranted.

Conclusion: The challenge to the seizure and the notice was not entertained, and relief was declined.

Issue (ii): Whether the amendment application challenging the constitutional validity of the penalty provision could be entertained at that stage.

Analysis: The challenge to the vires of the penalty provision was sought after the matter had been argued at length and the pleadings were complete. The request was considered premature in the circumstances, and the petitioner was left free to pursue the constitutional challenge before the appropriate Bench when occasion arose.

Conclusion: The amendment application was rejected at that stage.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings ended in dismissal, with the Court declining to exercise writ jurisdiction and leaving the petitioner to the statutory remedy available under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court will not interfere in tax seizure matters involving disputed factual questions where the statute provides an adequate alternative remedy, and a constitutional challenge raised at an advanced stage may be declined as premature.

---