Declaration forms cannot be withheld for disputed tax demands, and writ relief remains available against jurisdictional illegality.

Declaration forms under rule 8(4)(c)(ii) of the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1975 may be withheld only where the dealer has defaulted in paying tax or penalty that is admitted to be due and not in dispute. A contested assessed demand, including one challenged in revision, cannot be treated as an undisputed liability for this purpose. The existence of an alternative remedy does not bar writ relief under article 226 where the impugned refusal is without jurisdiction and contrary to law.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether declaration forms could be withheld under rule 8(4)(c)(ii) of the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1975 when the assessed tax demand was under dispute and had been challenged in revision; (ii) whether the availability of an alternative remedy barred exercise of writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): whether declaration forms could be withheld under rule 8(4)(c)(ii) of the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1975 when the assessed tax demand was under dispute and had been challenged in revision.

Analysis: Rule 8(4)(c)(ii) applies only where the applicant has defaulted in payment of tax or penalty which he admits to be due and which is not in dispute. The language of the rule makes the dealer's admission and absence of dispute essential conditions. A demand that is being contested in revision cannot be treated as an undisputed liability for the purpose of withholding declaration forms. Reading the rule otherwise would render the words "admits to be due" and "which is not in dispute" redundant.

Conclusion: The refusal to issue ST-1 forms on the footing of rule 8(4)(c)(ii) was unlawful, as the tax demand was disputed.

Issue (ii): whether the availability of an alternative remedy barred exercise of writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to writ relief. Where the impugned action is without jurisdiction and contrary to law, the High Court may intervene directly instead of driving the petitioner to another remedy. On the facts, the order withholding the forms was found to be wholly without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable despite the alternative remedy.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was quashed and the authorities were directed to issue the declaration forms, with costs awarded to the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: Declaration forms under rule 8(4)(c)(ii) can be withheld only for non-payment of tax or penalty that the dealer admits is due and that is not in dispute, and a writ court may interfere where the refusal is without jurisdiction notwithstanding an alternative remedy.

---