1961 (3) TMI 82 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Competency of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on behalf of the State against one of its own officers.
2. Existence of an alternative adequate and equally efficacious remedy.
3. Unexplained delay and laches on the part of the petitioner.

Analysis:
1. The case was referred to a larger Bench due to the importance of determining the competency of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on behalf of the State against one of its officers. The writ was sought against an order of the Financial Commissioner (Taxation), Punjab, with the State of Punjab as the petitioner. The Financial Commissioner did not engage counsel, leading to ex parte proceedings against the department. The respondent contractor-firm raised objections regarding the delay in filing the writ petition without proper explanation. The Court considered the discretionary nature of the remedy under Article 226 and the principle that an alternative adequate remedy elsewhere may bar interference under Article 227, especially when the State is the petitioner. The Court found the petition unsustainable due to the existence of an alternative remedy and unexplained delay and laches.

2. The Court referenced the case of K.S. Rashid and Son v. Income-tax Investigation Commission, highlighting the discretionary nature of the remedy under Article 226. The Court emphasized that the presence of an effective alternative remedy is a relevant factor in deciding whether to entertain a petition under Article 226. In this case, the Court noted the existence of provisions for reference to the High Court under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act and the Pepsu General Sales Tax Ordinance, indicating an alternative remedy available to the petitioner. The Court considered the delay in filing the writ petition from the date of the impugned order, deeming it unjustified without a valid explanation.

3. The Court found the petition unsustainable on the grounds of unexplained delay and laches, as well as the availability of an alternative adequate remedy. The Court highlighted that in cases where a fundamental right is violated by a manifestly illegal act, the Court may choose to exercise its discretion under Article 226, despite the presence of an alternative remedy. However, in this case involving the State as the petitioner, such considerations were deemed irrelevant. The Court concluded that due to the existence of an alternative remedy and the unexplained delay, the petition was dismissed, and the respondent was awarded costs of the proceedings.

This detailed analysis showcases the Court's reasoning regarding the competency of the petition, the presence of an alternative remedy, and the significance of unexplained delay and laches in the legal judgment.