Consequential writ relief and photo-processing tax demands quashed after the court rejected alternative-remedy objections.

Writ jurisdiction remained available where the challenge to rectification orders and demand notices was consequential to a challenge against the underlying circular; the existence of an appellate remedy did not bar relief, and the alternative-remedy objection was rejected. The High Court also followed its earlier binding ruling that the relevant Sixth Schedule entry had not been revived, so tax could not be levied on processing and supply of photographs, photo prints and negatives. On that basis, the re-rectification orders and consequential demand notices were quashed, and the assessees obtained complete relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petitions challenging the rectification orders and consequential demand notices were maintainable despite the availability of an appellate remedy, when such relief was consequential to the challenge to the circular. (ii) Whether the re-rectification orders and demand notices levying tax on processing and supply of photographs, photo prints and negatives could stand in view of the earlier binding decision that no such levy was permissible.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petitions challenging the rectification orders and consequential demand notices were maintainable despite the availability of an appellate remedy, when such relief was consequential to the challenge to the circular.

Analysis: Where the challenge to the assessment action is consequential to the challenge against the circular directing such action, the existence of an appellate remedy does not, by itself, bar writ jurisdiction. The earlier decision in a similar line of cases had entertained and granted relief on the consequential challenge, and the same approach applied here.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were maintainable and the objection based on alternative remedy was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the re-rectification orders and demand notices levying tax on processing and supply of photographs, photo prints and negatives could stand in view of the earlier binding decision that no such levy was permissible.

Analysis: The court followed its earlier binding decision holding that the relevant entry in the Sixth Schedule had not been revived or restored and that the authorities could not levy tax on transfer of property in goods involved in processing photo negatives and supplying photo prints and photographs. The impugned re-rectification orders and consequential demands were founded on the contrary view and therefore could not survive.

Conclusion: The re-rectification orders and consequential demand notices were quashed.

Final Conclusion: The assessees obtained complete relief, with the consequential tax demands set aside and the writ appeals and writ petitions allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Consequential writ relief may be granted notwithstanding an alternative statutory remedy, and tax demands based on a purported revival of an entry already held not to be restored cannot be sustained.

---