1981 (12) TMI 156 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of items manufactured by the petitioner for taxation under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act.
2. Jurisdiction of the High Court to investigate disputed questions of fact under article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought to challenge assessment and reassessment orders by the second respondent classifying wheels and top rollers as taxable tractor parts under entry 55 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The petitioner argued that these items should be considered as component parts of a tank, not tractor parts, for taxation at a multi-point rate. The Additional Government Pleader contended that the matter should be addressed through appeals as per statutory remedies rather than in writ jurisdiction. The court referred to previous judgments emphasizing that factual determinations leading to jurisdictional facts can be investigated under article 226, but generally, the court declines to interfere with assessment orders when statutory remedies are available unless there is a question of vires of a statute or an error of jurisdiction. The court noted that deciding whether the items are spare parts of a tank or a tractor requires detailed technical investigation, and such disputed questions of fact are better suited for statutory tribunals. Therefore, the court dismissed the writ petitions, allowing the petitioner to pursue statutory remedies under the Act.

2. The High Court analyzed the jurisdictional aspect of investigating disputed questions of fact under article 226 of the Constitution of India. While acknowledging the wide powers under article 226, the court recognized the need to impose restrictions on itself when dealing with complex factual disputes. Referring to previous judgments, the court highlighted that each case must be evaluated on its own merits, and not all questions of fact, even of a jurisdictional nature, warrant High Court intervention. The court emphasized that errors by assessing authorities can be corrected by higher authorities under the Act, and patent injustice must be demonstrated for direct application to the High Court. In the present case, the court found that the nature of the petitioner's query required a detailed technical investigation into complex factual matters best suited for statutory tribunals. Therefore, the court declined to delve into the merits of the case and dismissed the writ petitions, allowing the petitioner to pursue statutory remedies while excluding the time taken for the writ petitions from the statutory process.