Court dismisses appeal citing availability of alternative remedy, stresses fair litigation conduct, sets timeline for filing.

The appeal was dismissed by the court due to the availability of an alternative remedy for challenging the final assessment order. The court emphasized the importance of fair litigation conduct by the assessee and provided directions for pending assessment proceedings and the determination of sales nature. The appeal could be entertained if filed within a specified period and upon depositing the required amount. The remaining demand amount was stayed pending the appeal decision, with no costs ordered.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against order of assessment, Provisional assessment order, Violation of principles of natural justice, Availability of alternative remedy, Final assessment order, Validity of law provisions, Nature of sales determination, Stay of remaining demand amount.

Analysis:
The case involves an appeal arising from the dismissal of a writ petition challenging a provisional assessment order. The appellant, a company engaged in manufacturing and selling synthetic yarn, closed its Bhilwara depot and started selling goods directly from another location. The assessing officer made a provisional assessment order regarding sales to Bhilwara constituents, leading to a legal challenge. The petitioner alleged a lack of opportunity before the provisional assessment order and filed a writ petition, which was dismissed due to the availability of an alternative remedy. Subsequently, final assessment orders were issued before an appeal could be filed. The court found the dismissal of the writ petition on grounds of alternative remedy appropriate for the final assessment order challenge for the year 1997-98, as no arbitrariness or injustice was observed.

The judgment also addressed the pending assessment proceedings for previous years and the determination of the nature of sales through an agent. The court directed that if the appeal is filed within a specified period, the appellate authority may entertain it upon depositing the required amount without objections to the limitation period. The remaining demand amount was stayed pending the appeal decision. The court emphasized the fair prosecution of litigation by the assessee and dismissed the appeal and writ petition, with no order as to costs.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal based on the availability of an alternative remedy for the final assessment order challenge. The judgment also provided directions for the pending assessment proceedings and the nature of sales determination, allowing for the appeal to be entertained upon compliance with specified conditions. The court highlighted the importance of fair litigation conduct by the assessee and decided to stay the remaining demand amount pending the appeal outcome, with no costs ordered.

---