Sales tax exemption disputes: disallowance within assessing power is a merits error, not a jurisdictional defect for writ relief.

Sales tax exemption under a notification issued under section 8-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act depended on satisfaction of prescribed conditions, including certification by the competent industrial authority and qualification of the relevant investments as "fixed assets." The assessing authority had jurisdiction to determine tax liability and examine whether those conditions were met; an erroneous disallowance within that authority is an error on merits, not a jurisdictional defect. In revenue matters, where a statutory appellate remedy exists, writ interference is generally unavailable unless the order is wholly without jurisdiction, natural justice is violated, or the statute is challenged as ultra vires. The assessment orders were therefore not open to writ review, and the statutory appeal had to be pursued.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessing authority's disallowance of sales tax exemption was a jurisdictional error justifying writ interference, or merely an error on merits to be challenged in statutory appeal.

Analysis: The exemption under the notification issued under section 8-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, depended on fulfillment of prescribed conditions, including eligibility certified by the competent industrial authority. The assessing authority was empowered to determine tax liability and to examine whether the certified investments answered the statutory description of "fixed assets" for exemption purposes. A wrong decision within the scope of that power remains an error on merits and does not become a jurisdictional defect merely because the assessee disputes the disallowance. In revenue matters, where the statute provides an appellate hierarchy, writ interference is not warranted unless the order is wholly without jurisdiction or the case involves exceptional grounds such as violation of natural justice or a challenge to the vires of the statute.

Conclusion: The assessment orders were not without jurisdiction; the petitioner had to pursue the statutory appellate remedy and writ relief was not maintainable.

---