1994 (2) TMI 274 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to Explanation 3B of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963.
2. Merits of assessments P1 and P2.
3. Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
4. Availability of alternative remedies under the sales tax enactment.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged Explanation 3B of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, along with other provisions. The court found no substance in this challenge as Explanation 3B merely incorporates the provisions of the Constitution without alteration. The challenge to the Constitution (Forty-sixth Amendment) Act was deemed invalid based on a previous Supreme Court decision. The court overruled the plea of the petitioner regarding this issue.

2. The petitioner raised contentions on the merits of assessments P1 and P2. The court noted that these issues should be addressed by the appellate authority established under section 34 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. Some of the raised questions were factual in nature and not suitable for consideration under Article 226 of the Constitution.

3. The High Court highlighted the principle that when an efficacious alternative remedy, such as appeal and second appeal, is available under the sales tax enactment, the court should refrain from using its jurisdiction under Article 226 to review assessments on their merits. Citing previous Supreme Court decisions, the court emphasized the hierarchy of authorities provided for redressal against wrongful acts in the sales tax scheme.

4. The court emphasized that the Kerala Act offers sufficient remedies for the petitioner to address the assessments in question. Given the availability of appellate forums under the Act, the High Court declined to entertain the original petition on its merits. The court stressed that incidental challenges to the Act, especially when unfounded, do not warrant the High Court acting as an appellate authority. The petitioner was directed to pursue remedies before the appellate forum as per section 34 of the Act.

5. Despite declining to entertain the petition on its merits, the court acknowledged the petitioner's timely filing within a month of receiving the assessment orders. The court permitted the petitioner to file appeals against the orders P1 and P2 by a specified date. The collection of tax demanded was to be suspended to allow the petitioner to seek stay orders from the appellate authority. No costs were awarded in the disposition of the writ petition.