Eligibility certificate under sales tax law cannot be ignored by the assessing authority; writ relief remains available against jurisdictional error.

A subsisting eligibility certificate issued under section 4-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 binds the taxing authorities, and the Sales Tax Officer cannot ignore it or conduct a fresh enquiry into the facts on which it was granted. Any cancellation can be made only by the authority empowered under the statute and in the prescribed manner; until then, assessment and demand based on disregarding the certificate are without jurisdiction. The existence of an alternative remedy under section 9 does not bar writ jurisdiction where the impugned action is wholly without jurisdiction. The notice and consequential assessment orders were therefore quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Sales Tax Officer could ignore an eligibility certificate granted under section 4-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 and proceed to assess and collect sales tax on the footing that the certificate had been obtained on information; and (ii) whether the writ petition was liable to be refused on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy under section 9 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948.

Issue (i): whether the Sales Tax Officer could ignore an eligibility certificate granted under section 4-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 and proceed to assess and collect sales tax on the footing that the certificate had been obtained on wrong information.

Analysis: The eligibility certificate under section 4-A was issued by the competent industrial authority, and the statute did not confer upon the Sales Tax Officer any power to sit in judgment over its validity or to cancel it. The limited power of cancellation lay with the competent authority under section 4-A(3), and only on the grounds and in the manner provided by law. So long as the certificate remained uncancelled, it bound the taxing authorities. A fresh enquiry by the assessing officer into the correctness of the certificate or the factual basis on which it was issued was impermissible.

Conclusion: The Sales Tax Officer had no jurisdiction to ignore the subsisting eligibility certificate, and the assessment and demand founded on such disregard were unsustainable.

Issue (ii): whether the writ petition was liable to be refused on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy under section 9 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948.

Analysis: The impugned action was held to be wholly without jurisdiction. In such a case, the existence of an alternative statutory remedy does not bar exercise of writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The objection based on alternative remedy was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The impugned notice and the consequential assessment orders were quashed, and the petitioners obtained complete relief against tax realisation based on disregard of the eligibility certificate.

Ratio Decidendi: A subsisting eligibility certificate issued by the competent authority under section 4-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 cannot be ignored or collaterally examined by the assessing authority unless it is cancelled by the authority empowered by the statute; action taken in disregard of such certificate is without jurisdiction.

---