TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (3) TMI 249
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of bleaching and dyeing the same and returning the same to the customers in lieu of which they are paid labour charges on job work basis based on the number of bundles for which job work is done. (b) The members of the petitioner association are not involved in the process of manufacture of any product as defined under the Textiles Committee Act (in short "the Act") and they have not been hitherto required to pay any Cess or other duty under the Act and that being the case, some of the members of the petitioner association have received demand notices for the years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 from the first respondent stating that they are manufacturers of textiles as defined under the Act and as such, they are liable to pay Cess calculated at the rate of 0.05% and also calling upon them to furnish monthly returns in Form A as required under Rule 4 of the Textiles Committee Rules, 1975 (in short "the Rules") for the entire labour charges received by them. (c) In reply, the notices submitted their elaborate reply explaining that they are not manufacturers of textiles as defined under the provi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....annot pass on to their customers. 4. The respondents have filed their counter and their case is as under: (a) Since the definition of the term "manufacturer" has not been defined, the processors were clarified their status as "manufacturer", taking into account the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Sirsilk vs. Textiles Committee and Others reported in (AIR 1989 SC 317) and as per that judgment, any industry engaged in manufacture or production of any articles mentioned in first schedule of the IDR Act 1951 is brought within the provisions of the said enactment. The IDR Act, 1951, clearly contemplates a processing house as an industry and the said Act is Pari Materia. This being the case, the processor can be said manufacturer for the purposes of the Textiles Committee Act, 1963. As such, processors are liable to pay cess under the Textiles Committee Act, 1963. (b) The respondents had taken up the assessment of members of the petitioner association and since the members failed to submit their returns, the Committee was forced to collect the turnover figures from the Commercial Tax Department to arrive at the amount of Cess payable which is in accordance with the provisions....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned, if this objection, regarding the maintainability was raised and brought to the notice of this court, when these writ petitions came up for admission or immediately thereafter. However, it is seen from the records that some of the writ petitions in this batch, have been entertained by this court in the year 1989 and they are pending for nearly five years. The counter-affidavits in these writ petitions have been filed before this Court only on November 28, 1994, when these writ petitions were taken up for final hearing, raising the contentions that the petitioner is having an alternative remedy and that the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on that ground. However, as the writ petitions have been admitted and kept pending before this Court all these years, we are of the view that it is not proper to dismiss these writ petitions, at this stage, on the ground that the petitioner has not exhausted the alternative remedy. Inasmuch as these cases involve interpretation of Section 11(4A) of the Act, on the undisputed facts of this case, and as it is also in the interest of the revenue to have the issues in question settled early, the petitioner is not directed to avail of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.........These are basically questions of fact. There was no reason for the assessee-company to by-pass the statutory remedy and come to the court with a writ petition. These questions basically of fact should be agitated before the statutory appellate authority. We are of the view that the assessee should not have been allowed to by-pass the statutory remedies where the questions of fact could have been properly agitated and ascertained." 12. Before proceeding to analyse the merits of the case, it has to be decided whether the writ petition itself is maintainable when the petitioner association has approached this Court without exhausting the alternative remedy available to it under 5A(7) of the Act. Though the counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments reported in 1999 ITR (Vol.237) 299 and 1995 ITR (Vol. 213) 639 (supra) to substantiate his contention that this writ petition should not be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy, I would like to distinguish the same with the facts of the case on hand. Firstly, in the cases relied on by the learned Senior Counsel, the writ petitions were kept pending for quite a long time, say ten years. Fi....