1995 (11) TMI 408 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the assessing authority in determining inter-State sales.
2. Maintainability of the writ application without exhausting statutory remedies of appeal and revision.
3. Invocation of fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
4. Application of the Supreme Court decision in Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. S.R. Sarkar.
5. Consideration of disputed facts and evidence under Article 226.
6. Adequacy and efficacy of statutory remedy of appeal under Section 45 of the Act.
7. Direction to recall orders dismissing revision applications.
8. Commissioner's suo motu power of revision under Section 46(4) of the Act.
9. Disposition of the writ application.

Analysis:
The writ application was filed to challenge the assessment orders by the Commercial Tax Officer regarding sales from outside Bihar to respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The petitioners claimed the sales were inter-State, but the authority deemed them intra-State, leading to tax liability. The assessing authority's jurisdiction over such sales was questioned, alleging infringement of fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The State contended the writ was not maintainable without exhausting appeal and revision remedies. The petitioners withdrew appeals due to financial constraints, leading to the rejection of revision applications. The Court considered the adequacy of the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 45 of the Act and cited precedents to support the requirement of exhausting such remedies before resorting to writ jurisdiction.

The Court acknowledged the Supreme Court's decision in Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. S.R. Sarkar, emphasizing the need to establish jurisdictional errors or statutory misapplications to invoke Article 226. It was noted that factual disputes, like determining inter-State sales, were beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction. The petitioners' withdrawal of appeals due to financial constraints was also considered, highlighting the importance of adhering to statutory appeal procedures. The Court held that the remedy of appeal under Section 45 of the Act was adequate and efficacious, rendering the writ application not maintainable until statutory remedies were exhausted.

Regarding the recall of orders dismissing revision applications, the Court noted the Commissioner's suo motu power under Section 46(4) of the Act. However, without evidence of dismissal of revision applications, the Court refrained from issuing a positive direction. The petitioners were advised to pursue the alternative remedy of appeal and revision before the relevant authority. The Court disposed of the writ application, emphasizing the importance of following statutory procedures and preserving the petitioners' rights before appellate or revisional authorities.