Plastic water tanks as containers: classification under the sales tax schedule and writ relief despite alternative remedy.

Plastic water tanks were treated as containers for sales tax classification under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, so they fell within entry 19 covering packing material and containers rather than entry 187 for articles of plastics. The Court relied on prior treatment of similar plastic goods as containers and rejected the view that storage use took the tanks outside that entry. It also reiterated that an alternative appellate remedy is not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction under Article 226, and that writ relief may still be granted where the impugned assessment order is manifestly erroneous. On that basis, the assessment orders were quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether plastic water tanks were classifiable under entry 19 of the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 as containers, or under entry 187 as articles of plastics; (ii) whether the writ petitions were not maintainable in view of the availability of an alternative appellate remedy.

Issue (i): Whether plastic water tanks were classifiable under entry 19 of the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 as containers, or under entry 187 as articles of plastics.

Analysis: Entry 19, as amended, covered packing material and all types of containers not otherwise mentioned, while entry 187 covered specified articles of plastics. A plastic water tank was treated as a container in prior judicial decisions, and plastic cups and tumblers were also held to fall within the concept of containers. On that reasoning, a plastic water tank was not to be placed in the residuary plastic-entry classification merely because it was used for storage rather than carriage.

Conclusion: The classification under entry 187 was unsustainable and the goods were held to fall under entry 19.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petitions were not maintainable in view of the availability of an alternative appellate remedy.

Analysis: The existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Where the impugned orders are manifestly erroneous, the Court may entertain the writ petitions instead of insisting upon an appeal.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were maintainable and the alternative remedy objection was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The assessment orders were quashed because the goods were wrongly classified and the Court exercised writ jurisdiction notwithstanding the appellate remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: Plastic water tanks are containers for the purpose of sales tax classification, and the availability of an alternative remedy does not bar writ relief where the assessment order is manifestly erroneous.

---