Check-post penalty jurisdiction is limited to tax evasion cases, not bona fide disputes on classification or taxability.

Availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion under Article 226, not an absolute bar, so writ review may still lie where jurisdiction is questioned or the action is arbitrary or contrary to natural justice. The check-post penalty power under section 14B of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 is confined to situations showing a reasonable nexus with attempted tax evasion. Where the transporter produces supporting documents and raises a bona fide legal dispute on classification or taxability, the authority cannot use summary check-post proceedings as a substitute for assessment. The document states that, on the facts described, the penalty jurisdiction was wrongly assumed and the order was quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was barred by the availability of an alternative remedy; (ii) Whether the check-post authority had jurisdiction under section 14B of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 to impose penalty on the facts of the case.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was barred by the availability of an alternative remedy.

Analysis: The availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and self-imposed restraint under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not an absolute bar. Writ interference remains available where the order is without jurisdiction, violates natural justice, or shows arbitrary exercise of power. Since the core controversy went to the jurisdiction assumed by the check-post authority, the existence of an appellate remedy did not by itself prevent examination of the petition.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not barred by alternative remedy.

Issue (ii): Whether the check-post authority had jurisdiction under section 14B of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 to impose penalty on the facts of the case.

Analysis: The statutory power at the check-post is intended to prevent or check evasion of tax and must have a reasonable nexus with an attempt to evade tax. Where the transporter produces the relevant documents and raises a bona fide dispute on taxability supported by legal material, the matter calls for adjudication and not summary penal action at the check-post. The authority cannot convert the check-post proceedings into a substitute for assessment merely because a different view on classification or rate of tax is possible. On the admitted facts, the petitioner had furnished documents and raised a genuine legal contention regarding the nature of the goods, so the assumption of penal jurisdiction was unwarranted.

Conclusion: The impugned penalty order was without jurisdiction and could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The summary penal power at the check-post can be used only when the facts reasonably indicate tax evasion, and not to resolve a bona fide dispute on taxability. The impugned order was therefore quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: Check-post penalty jurisdiction under a tax statute can be invoked only where there is a reasonable nexus with an attempt to evade tax; it cannot be used to decide a bona fide and debatable question of classification or taxability.

---