Alternative remedy and natural justice objections in tax proceedings led to setting aside of orders and remand.

HC held that the writ petition could be entertained despite an alternative statutory reference remedy because the core jurisdictional and fairness issues had not been properly decided and further delay would not serve justice. It also found that the authorities had not examined whether the later order was passed in the correct statutory framework, whether a second exercise of revisional power was permissible, whether fresh notice was required after remand, and whether the dealer had been effectively confronted with material obtained from other authorities. The preliminary objection was overruled, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh decision.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ petition should be entertained despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy, and (ii) whether the impugned orders could be sustained when the jurisdictional objection and the plea of violation of natural justice had not been properly addressed, warranting setting aside of the orders and remand of the matter.

Issue (i): whether the writ petition should be entertained despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

Analysis: The availability of a reference remedy under the State Act did not bar interference in the facts of the case because the controversy had already travelled through multiple authorities and the real questions had still not been decided. The Court held that delaying adjudication further would not serve the ends of justice, particularly where the dealer's grievance was that the material relied upon against it had not been effectively confronted and the jurisdictional issues remained unresolved.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection based on alternative remedy was overruled.

Issue (ii): whether the impugned orders could be sustained when the jurisdictional objection and the plea of violation of natural justice had not been properly addressed, warranting setting aside of the orders and remand of the matter.

Analysis: The Court found that the proceedings had commenced under the State Act, whereas the later order was passed in a different statutory frame, and the legal issues concerning second exercise of revisional power, the authority to act after remand, and the effect of the absence of a fresh notice had not been examined by the authorities below. The Court also noted that the material gathered from the Delhi authorities had not been effectively confronted to the dealer, giving rise to prejudice and a breach of natural justice. Since the Tribunal and the revisional authority had not gone into the real issues, the rectification order and the connected orders could not be allowed to stand.

Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh decision in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The dispute was not finally adjudicated on the merits of the tax claim, but the earlier orders were annulled and the matter was sent back for reconsideration by the competent authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Where jurisdictional objections and the requirement of fair hearing are not properly considered in tax proceedings, and the real issues remain undecided, the impugned orders may be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication.

---