Alternative remedy and second-sale exemption fail where assessment lacks jurisdiction and prior tax incidence is established.

Alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction where an assessment is alleged to be without jurisdiction, arbitrary, or vitiated by breach of natural justice; a wrong assumption of jurisdictional fact can justify interference under Article 226. On the tax issue, second-sale exemption could not be denied where the assessee produced purchase and sale records and the selling dealers' assessment orders showed prior tax incidence on the declared goods. Unsupported assumptions could not sustain treatment of the assessee as the first seller. The assessment was therefore set aside and the matter remitted for fresh assessment after hearing.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ court ought to decline interference on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory remedy when the assessment was alleged to be without jurisdiction and contrary to natural justice; (ii) Whether the denial of second-sale exemption on the facts of the assessment was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the writ court ought to decline interference on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory remedy when the assessment was alleged to be without jurisdiction and contrary to natural justice.

Analysis: The existence of an alternative remedy is only a rule of discretion and not an absolute bar to exercise of writ jurisdiction. Where the impugned order is asserted to be without jurisdiction, arbitrary, or vitiated by breach of natural justice, the High Court can entertain the writ petition. A wrong assumption of jurisdictional fact can justify interference under article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The objection based on alternative remedy could not defeat writ jurisdiction in the facts of the case.

Issue (ii): Whether the denial of second-sale exemption on the facts of the assessment was sustainable.

Analysis: The goods were declared goods taxable only at the first point of sale, and the assessee produced purchase and sale documents together with the assessment orders of the selling dealers showing that the goods had already suffered tax. The reasons adopted in the assessment order were unsupported by cogent material and rested on surmises. Once the initial burden under section 10 of the TNGST Act was discharged, the assessee could not be treated as the first seller for taxing the same transaction again.

Conclusion: The denial of second-sale exemption was unsustainable and the assessment was without jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The appellate court interfered with the assessment, set it aside, and remitted the matter for fresh assessment after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: Availability of an alternative remedy does not bar writ relief where the impugned assessment is without jurisdiction or founded on unsupported assumptions, and a purchaser of declared goods cannot be taxed as first seller when prior tax incidence is established.

---