Court allows appeals, quashes assessment order, ruling sales exempt under CST Act. High Court discretion emphasized.

The appeals were allowed, setting aside the judgments of the single Judge. The court quashed the impugned notices and assessment order, ruling in favor of the appellants. It held that the sales were inter-State, exempt under the CST Act, and beyond the jurisdiction of the RST Act. The court emphasized the High Court's discretion to entertain petitions under Article 226 when executive actions lack jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Availability of alternate remedy.
2. Interpretation of Section 3(b) and Section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (CST Act).
3. Jurisdiction of the assessing authority under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (RST Act).
4. Classification of sales as inter-State or intra-State.
5. Validity of the assessment orders and notices issued by the Assistant Commissioner.

Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Availability of Alternate Remedy:
The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petitions on the ground of availability of an alternate remedy under the RST Act. The appellants argued that their case falls within well-defined exceptions to the rule regarding exhaustion of alternate remedies, citing that the assessing authority's action was without jurisdiction and violated fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The court held that the High Court has the discretion to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, even if an alternate remedy exists, particularly when there is a threat by the State to realize tax without authority of law or when the action of the executive authority is without jurisdiction.

2. Interpretation of Section 3(b) and Section 6(2) of the CST Act:
The appellants contended that their sales were inter-State sales under Section 3(b) and were exempt from tax under Section 6(2) of the CST Act. They argued that the sales were effected by the transfer of documents of title during the movement of goods from Gujarat to Rajasthan, and they did not take physical delivery of the goods. The respondents argued that the sales were intra-State as the appellant took symbolic/constructive delivery at their branch office. The court examined the legislative provisions and relevant case law, concluding that the sales were inter-State as the movement of goods continued until delivery was taken by the ultimate buyers, and the appellant did not take actual delivery.

3. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority under the RST Act:
The appellants argued that the assessing authority under the RST Act usurped jurisdiction by treating inter-State sales as local sales and imposing tax. The court held that if the sales were inter-State, any act to realize tax under the RST Act would be ultra vires and in violation of fundamental rights. The court concluded that the assessing authority acted without jurisdiction in treating the sales as intra-State.

4. Classification of Sales as Inter-State or Intra-State:
The court analyzed whether the sales were inter-State or intra-State by examining the movement of goods and the transfer of documents of title. The court found that the goods were delivered to the ultimate buyers without the appellant taking physical delivery, and the movement of goods continued until delivery was taken by the ultimate buyers. Therefore, the sales were inter-State under Section 3(b) of the CST Act.

5. Validity of the Assessment Orders and Notices:
The court found that the inference of constructive delivery raised by the assessing authority was patently illegal. The court quashed the impugned notices and the assessment order, concluding that the proceedings initiated under the RST Act were without jurisdiction and authority of law.

Conclusion:
The appeals were allowed, the judgments of the learned single Judge were set aside, and the impugned notices and assessment order were quashed. The court held that the subsequent sales effected by the appellant during the course of inter-State movement of goods were exempt under the CST Act and beyond the scope of the RST Act. The court emphasized that the High Court has the discretion to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, even if an alternate remedy exists, in cases where the executive authority acts without jurisdiction.

---