Controlled statutory supply can still be a sale, and writ jurisdiction cannot be ousted by tax legislation.

A controlled supply of country spirit under a statutory contract was treated as a sale because the arrangement still involved transfer of goods for price with mutual assent, even though the transaction was heavily regulated; the deeming provision making the licensed contractor the first point seller was therefore within legislative competence and the supply was exigible to sales tax. Section 4 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 could not validly exclude the High Court's writ jurisdiction under articles 226 and 227, since constitutional judicial review cannot be ousted; the provision was unconstitutional to that extent but was saved by reading it down to preserve writ jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the supply of country spirit under the statutory contract constituted a sale exigible to sales tax and whether Explanation 3(ii) to section 8(1)(a) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 was intra vires. (ii) Whether section 4 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 was unconstitutional for ousting the jurisdiction of the High Court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, and if so, whether it could be read down.

Issue (i): Whether the supply of country spirit under the statutory contract constituted a sale exigible to sales tax and whether Explanation 3(ii) to section 8(1)(a) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 was intra vires.

Analysis: The contract and licence were not treated as a mere transport arrangement. The statutory scheme required the contractor to procure, transport, maintain stock, keep accounts, and receive the fixed cost price through the treasury mechanism, while licensed vendors obtained release of the spirit only after compliance with the prescribed procedure. The transaction, though regulated and controlled, retained the essential elements of a sale, namely transfer of goods for price with mutual assent not wholly excluded. A controlled sale remained a sale, and the legislative deeming of the licensed contractor as the first point seller was within legislative competence.

Conclusion: The transaction was a sale exigible to sales tax, and Explanation 3(ii) to section 8(1)(a) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 was valid and intra vires.

Issue (ii): Whether section 4 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 was unconstitutional for ousting the jurisdiction of the High Court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, and if so, whether it could be read down.

Analysis: Section 4 was construed as barring a challenge to jurisdiction after the stipulated period in a manner that would extend to writ jurisdiction. Such an exclusion could not stand against the constitutional power of judicial review under articles 226 and 227, which forms part of the basic structure. The provision was therefore unconstitutional to the extent it purported to exclude High Court jurisdiction, but the defect was cured by reading in an exception preserving writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: Section 4 was unconstitutional to the extent it excluded the High Court's jurisdiction, but it was upheld after reading down.

Final Conclusion: The assessment orders were sustained, the sales tax liability under the deeming provision was upheld, and section 4 was saved only by reading it consistently with the High Court's writ jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: A transaction carried out under a controlled statutory regime may still be a sale if the essential contractual elements of transfer for price and mutual assent are present, and a statutory ouster cannot curtail the constitutional power of judicial review under articles 226 and 227.

---