1994 (6) TMI 207 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Challenge against sales tax assessment orders for exemption of sugar-candy, Entertaining a writ petition under article 226 despite the existence of an alternative remedy.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered dealer, challenged sales tax assessment orders rejecting exemption of sugar-candy under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The petitioner claimed sugar-candy and sugar are the same, thus entitled to exemption. The Revenue argued they are different commodities. The main issue was whether the High Court can entertain a petition under article 226 despite the existence of an alternative remedy, i.e., appeal under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act.

The Court highlighted that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is usually enforced in fiscal matters involving state revenue. However, it clarified that the mere existence of an alternative remedy does not always bar a petition under article 226. The Court emphasized that judicial review is a fundamental aspect of the Constitution, and the decision to entertain a petition despite an alternative remedy depends on the circumstances of each case. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's stance in the Titaghur Paper Mills case, emphasizing the need to avail the special remedy provided by the statute.

Referring to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise case, the Court reiterated that article 226 should not bypass statutory procedures unless statutory remedies are inadequate for extraordinary situations. The Court concluded that the petitioner failed to justify the writ petition, as the issue could be addressed through the appellate authority under the statute. Therefore, the Court dismissed the petition but allowed the petitioner to seek relief through the appellate authority, with the time spent on the writ petition excluded from the appeal filing period.

In summary, the Court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking judicial intervention under article 226. The judgment underscored that the availability of an alternative remedy does not automatically bar the High Court from entertaining a petition, but each case's circumstances must be considered. The petitioner was advised to pursue relief through the appellate authority, with the time spent on the writ petition not counted towards the appeal filing period.