Alternate statutory remedy does not bar writ review where documents accompany goods and penalty is disproportionate.

An alternate statutory appeal under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act did not, by itself, bar writ jurisdiction where the record showed invoices and supporting papers accompanied the goods and no clear basis for evasion emerged. On those facts, the penalty under amended section 78(10A) was found excessive because the driver carried the relevant documents and no tax liability was shown to exist. The Court therefore interfered with the levy and directed conditional release of the truck and goods on payment of 5 per cent of the value of the goods.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the availability of an appeal under section 84 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 barred the exercise of writ jurisdiction; (ii) whether the penalty imposed under amended section 78(10A) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 was justified on the facts, and what relief should follow.

Issue (i): whether the availability of an appeal under section 84 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 barred the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The existence of an appellate remedy does not by itself oust the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. Where the material on record indicates that the goods were accompanied by invoices and other necessary papers and that the case does not present a clear basis for tax evasion, the Court may still examine the legality of the action complained of.

Conclusion: The availability of an appeal did not bar the petition.

Issue (ii): whether the penalty imposed under amended section 78(10A) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 was justified on the facts, and what relief should follow.

Analysis: On the admitted facts, the truck driver was carrying the relevant invoices and papers, and no tax was shown to be due. In those circumstances, the penalty quantified at 50 per cent of the value of the goods was found to be excessive for the situation presented. The appropriate relief was to permit release of the truck and goods on payment of a reduced amount linked to the value of the goods.

Conclusion: The penalty was not upheld in its full measure, and release of the truck and goods was directed on payment of 5 per cent of the value of the goods.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded only in part, with the Court interfering with the penalty demand and granting conditional release of the vehicle and goods on payment of 5 per cent of the value.

Ratio Decidendi: The existence of an alternate statutory remedy does not necessarily bar writ jurisdiction, and a penalty imposed under check-post provisions may be interfered with where the factual basis for evasion is absent and the levy is disproportionate to the circumstances.

---