Premature writ challenge barred where revisional proceedings were pending and the tax statute provided an adequate alternative remedy.

A revisional order expressing only a prima facie view that an assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue did not finally determine liability to sales tax under section 3A of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976. Because the Commissioner had merely initiated revision and called for records and participation, no completed adjudication had been made. The writ petition was therefore premature and not maintainable, as the Act provided a complete statutory machinery, including revision and appeal, for challenging assessment-related orders. The party was required to pursue the pending revisional remedy before seeking constitutional relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Commissioner of Taxes had already taken a final decision that the petitioner was liable to pay sales tax under section 3A of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976; and (ii) whether the writ petition was maintainable when the revisional proceedings under the Act were still pending and statutory remedies were available.

Issue (i): Whether the Commissioner of Taxes had already taken a final decision that the petitioner was liable to pay sales tax under section 3A of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976.

Analysis: The revisional order showed only a prima facie opinion that the assessment made by the Superintendent of Taxes was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The Commissioner had merely initiated revision under section 21(1) and called upon the petitioner to produce records and participate in the hearing. The order did not amount to a completed assessment or an adjudication finally determining liability under section 3A.

Conclusion: The Commissioner had not taken a final decision on the petitioner's liability to pay sales tax.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was maintainable when the revisional proceedings under the Act were still pending and statutory remedies were available.

Analysis: The Act provided a complete machinery for challenging assessment-related orders, including revision and appeal. The petitioner had an opportunity to place its case before the revisional authority, and no final tax order had yet been passed. In such circumstances, the existence of an adequate statutory remedy and the pendency of the revision made the writ petition premature.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The challenge failed because the impugned revisional action was only an interim exercise of statutory power and the petitioner was required to pursue the remedy under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition is premature where the impugned order reflects only a provisional opinion in pending revisional proceedings and the statute provides an adequate alternative remedy for adjudication of tax liability.

---