Writ jurisdiction and newspaper inputs: concessional tax declarations could not be used for printing ink, making penalty sustainable.

Writ jurisdiction remained available against penalty proceedings where the challenge raised a pure question of law and alleged action without jurisdiction, so the revisional remedy under the KGST Act did not bar the petition. Newspapers were excluded from the definition of "goods" under the State sales tax scheme, so form 18 could not be used to obtain concessional tax treatment for printing ink used in newspaper production. Misuse of the declaration supported penalty proceedings under section 45A, though the authority was directed to reconsider whether the quantum of penalty was justified on the facts.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a writ petition challenging penalty proceedings was maintainable despite the availability of a revisional remedy under the KGST Act, and (ii) whether newspapers fell within the expression "goods" for the purpose of section 5(3) of the KGST Act so as to permit issue of form 18 and availment of concessional tax on printing ink, with consequential penalty under section 45A.

Issue (i): whether a writ petition challenging penalty proceedings was maintainable despite the availability of a revisional remedy under the KGST Act

Analysis: The availability of an alternate statutory remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction where the impugned action is alleged to be without jurisdiction, without authority of law, or in violation of constitutional limitations. The challenge here was not merely factual but turned on a pure question of law, including the alleged reliance on repealed or inapplicable provisions and the validity of the penalty orders.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable under article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (ii): whether newspapers fell within the expression "goods" for the purpose of section 5(3) of the KGST Act so as to permit issue of form 18 and availment of concessional tax on printing ink, with consequential penalty under section 45A

Analysis: Under the constitutional scheme, the State's taxing power under entry 54 of List II excludes newspapers, while entry 92 of List I places newspapers within the Union field. The KGST Act itself defines "goods" in section 2(xii) so as to exclude newspapers. The context of section 5(3) of the KGST Act did not justify reading newspapers into that definition, unlike the different context considered under the Central Sales Tax Act. Since newspapers are outside the definition of goods under the State Act, form 18 could not be used for purchasing printing ink for newspaper production at the concessional rate. That misuse attracted the penalty provision.

Conclusion: Newspapers were not covered by section 5(3) of the KGST Act, form 18 was not available for such purchases, and the penalty proceedings under section 45A were sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on the main challenge to the penalty proceedings, though the assessing authority was directed to reconsider whether the quantum of penalty at double the tax was justified in the facts of the case.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the State sales tax statute expressly excludes newspapers from the definition of goods, the concessional purchase declaration cannot be used for newspaper-related inputs, and penalty for misuse of the form is legally sustainable; the mere availability of a revisional remedy does not oust writ jurisdiction where the levy is alleged to be without jurisdiction.

---