Court dismisses petition challenging tax officer notice, emphasizes exhausting statutory remedies

The court dismissed the petition challenging the notice and seizure by the Trade Tax Officer, emphasizing the need to exhaust statutory remedies before seeking writ jurisdiction. The petitioner was directed to utilize the statutory remedy under section 13-A(6) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, which had not been exhausted. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, granting the petitioner the liberty to pursue the available statutory remedy.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the notice dated March 24, 2003, issued by the Trade Tax Officer.
2. Seizure of Deshi Ghee and the vehicle by the Trade Tax Officer.
3. Alleged violation of principles of natural justice and statutory provisions.
4. Availability and requirement of exhausting statutory remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Notice Dated March 24, 2003:
The petition was filed to quash the notice dated March 24, 2003, issued by the Trade Tax Officer, Grade-II, Mobile Squad, Shamli, Muzaffarnagar. The petitioner argued that the notice and subsequent actions were in violation of principles of natural justice and statutory provisions.

2. Seizure of Deshi Ghee and the Vehicle:
The facts of the case reveal that the vehicle carrying Deshi Ghee was seized by the Trade Tax Officer due to the absence of proper documentation. The petitioner contended that the allegations of missing documents were false and sought the release of the detained goods and vehicle.

3. Alleged Violation of Principles of Natural Justice and Statutory Provisions:
The petitioner's counsel argued that the seizure was in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice. The respondent, however, maintained that the petitioner had not exhausted the statutory remedy available under section 13-A(6) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.

4. Availability and Requirement of Exhausting Statutory Remedies:
The court cited multiple precedents emphasizing the necessity of exhausting statutory remedies before resorting to writ jurisdiction. Key judgments referenced include:
- G. Veerappa Pillai v. Raman & Raman Ltd.: The Supreme Court held that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked if the statute provides an appealable/revisable forum.
- Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd.: Reiterated the principle of exhausting statutory remedies.
- C.A. Abraham v. Income-tax Officer: Emphasized that statutory remedies must be exhausted before resorting to writ jurisdiction.
- K.S. Venkataraman and Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Madras: The writ court can entertain petitions if the order is without jurisdiction or passed in violation of natural justice.
- Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa: Refused to extend the ratio of earlier judgments where prerogative writs were issued despite available statutory remedies.
- Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks: Stated that writs should not generally be entertained if statutory remedies are available.
- Punjab National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan: Highlighted the necessity of judicial prudence in refraining from exercising writ jurisdiction when alternative remedies exist.
- State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh: Writs can be issued in exceptional cases where there is a breach of fundamental principles of justice.
- Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.: The rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion, not compulsion.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the petitioner had an adequate statutory remedy available under section 13-A(6) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, which had not been exhausted. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy provided.

Judgment:
The petition was dismissed, affirming that the petitioner should pursue the statutory remedy available under the Act.

---