Concluded exemption eligibility cannot be reopened without adverse material, and alternate remedy need not bar jurisdictional review.

After detailed inquiry and remand proceedings, the competent industrial authorities accepted inclusion of investment in moulds, dyes and jigs in fixed capital investment for exemption purposes. The text states that, where certificates, agreements, affidavits, invoices and official reports supported exclusive use for manufacture, the Commissioner could not invoke Section 4-A(3) to reopen the concluded issue in the absence of adverse material. It also notes that the challenge raised a jurisdictional question, so the existence of an alternate statutory remedy did not require relegation to that remedy in the circumstances described.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Commissioner could invoke Section 4-A(3) to reopen the addition of investment in moulds, dyes and jigs to the fixed capital investment after the competent authorities had, on detailed inquiry, accepted the claim; (ii) whether the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of alternate remedy.

Issue (i): whether the Commissioner could invoke Section 4-A(3) to reopen the addition of investment in moulds, dyes and jigs to the fixed capital investment after the competent authorities had, on detailed inquiry, accepted the claim.

Analysis: The record showed that the matter had been examined pursuant to the remand order, with consideration of certificates, agreements, affidavits, supplier invoices, assessment orders and reports of the concerned authorities. The competent field authorities found that the moulds, dyes and jigs were used exclusively for manufacture of components supplied back to the petitioner, and the Divisional Level Committee accordingly approved inclusion of the investment in the fixed capital investment. In these circumstances, the issue could not be treated as one warranting fresh interference under Section 4-A(3), especially when no adverse material was produced to dislodge the inquiry-based findings.

Conclusion: The Commissioner had no justification to reopen the concluded issue under Section 4-A(3), and the inclusion of the investment was upheld in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): whether the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of alternate remedy.

Analysis: The challenge was to a notice issued under Section 4-A(3) in a matter already decided on merits by the competent authorities and carried through remand proceedings. The Court treated the controversy as one involving jurisdiction and concluded that the existence of a further statutory remedy did not require relegation to that remedy in the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The objection based on alternate remedy was rejected in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The impugned notice was unsustainable and was quashed, with the writ petition being allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the competent industrial authorities have, after a detailed inquiry, finally determined eligibility and inclusion of investment for exemption purposes, the Commissioner cannot use Section 4-A(3) to re-agitate the same concluded matter in the absence of a demonstrated jurisdictional basis for interference.

---