Alternative remedy and transit seizure limits: under-invoicing suspicion alone cannot justify action beyond statutory authority.

An alternative statutory remedy does not bar tribunal or writ interference where the impugned seizure is alleged to be wholly without jurisdiction or ultra vires. The West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 and Rule 212(9) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995 permit transit-stage verification of the consignment's particulars to prevent tax evasion, but do not extend to assessing market value or authorising seizure merely on suspicion of under-invoicing unless expressly provided. A seizure dehors the statute is a jurisdictional defect and cannot be sustained; assessment proceedings may nevertheless continue in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the availability of an alternative statutory remedy barred the Tribunal from entertaining the challenge to the seizure. (ii) Whether the seizure of the goods on the ground of under-invoicing was within the authority conferred by the statutory scheme.

Issue (i): Whether the availability of an alternative statutory remedy barred the Tribunal from entertaining the challenge to the seizure.

Analysis: The statutory rule of self-restraint in writ or tribunal jurisdiction does not apply as an absolute bar. Where the action complained of is wholly without jurisdiction, or where jurisdictional error is alleged, the existence of an alternative remedy does not preclude adjudication. The exception to the alternative-remedy rule therefore applies when the impugned act itself is alleged to be ultra vires or beyond statutory authority.

Conclusion: The Tribunal ought not to have rejected the application solely on the ground of alternative remedy.

Issue (ii): Whether the seizure of the goods on the ground of under-invoicing was within the authority conferred by the statutory scheme.

Analysis: Section 68 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 and Rule 212(9) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995 contemplate verification of the description, quantity, weight, and value of goods accompanying the waybill to prevent tax evasion. The power at the transit stage does not extend to determining market value or effecting seizure merely because under-invoicing is suspected, especially when such action is not expressly authorised by the rules. Any seizure dehors the statute is illegal and amounts to a jurisdictional defect.

Conclusion: The seizure on the ground of under-invoicing was authority of law and could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded, the seizure was quashed, and consequential release of the security was directed while leaving assessment proceedings open in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: An alternative remedy does not bar judicial or tribunal interference where the impugned action is wholly without jurisdiction, and a transit-verification power limited to checking the particulars of the consignment cannot be stretched to authorise seizure for under-invoicing unless the statute expressly provides for it.

---