1987 (3) TMI 12 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Rajasthan
2. Validity of the assessment order dated February 28, 1987
3. Notice of demand issued
4. Applicability of circular letter in appellate proceedings
5. Availability of statutory remedies under Rajasthan Sales Tax Act
6. Invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution
7. Role of appellate authorities and superior officers in quasi-judicial proceedings
8. Growing tendency to bypass statutory remedies and approach the High Court directly
9. Dismissal of the writ petition due to the availability of alternative statutory remedy

Analysis:

The writ petition challenges the order of the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Rajasthan, the assessment order dated February 28, 1987, and the notice of demand. The petitioner argued that an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner would be futile due to a circular letter issued by the Additional Commissioner. The court clarified that assessing authorities must act quasi-judicially, independent of administrative orders, and circulars. The statutory framework under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act allows for appeals up to the Tribunal and subsequently to the High Court in revision, indicating the availability of remedies. The court declined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution, emphasizing the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before approaching the High Court.

The judgment highlights the need for appellate authorities and superior officers to refrain from issuing instructions or circulars that may impede the quasi-judicial process, ensuring a fair hearing for all parties involved. The court expressed concern over the increasing trend of bypassing statutory remedies and directly invoking article 226, flooding the court with unnecessary petitions. It stressed that the High Court's time should be preserved for cases where all legal avenues have been exhausted, urging petitioners to utilize statutory remedies provided under various laws before seeking relief through extraordinary jurisdiction.

Ultimately, the writ petition was dismissed due to the availability of an alternative statutory remedy for the petitioner. The court directed the appellate authority to expedite the appeal process within one month and ordered a stay on coercive actions for tax recovery until the appeal was resolved. This decision underscores the importance of following established legal procedures and exhausting all available remedies before seeking intervention from the High Court.