1972 (4) TMI 89

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he name and style "Lavindra Weaving Factory, outside Chatiwind Gate, Amritsar". A registration certificate was also obtained by the petitioner under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Its number was AMR. CST. 3391. In October, 1964, the Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar, issued a notice to the petitioner-respondent that since they were not carrying on business in their premises, they should appear and show cause as to why their registration certificate be not cancelled. After receiving the reply from the petitioner, no further action was taken. A similar notice was issued again on 17th December, 1965, but no action was taken after considering the reply sent by the petitioner. On 23rd January, 1968, another notice was served subs .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is order and the communication regarding the cancellation of his registration certificates. Two contentions were canvassed before the learned single judge on behalf of the petitioner: (1) That no opportunity was afforded by the Assessing Authority to the petitioner to rebut the material collected by it, and consequently, the impugned order being against the principles of natural justice, was illegal; (2) That although the order, dated 30th January, 1968, directed the cancellation of Registration Certificate No. AMR. IV-11753 only, yet in the communication issued in pursuance thereof, mention was made of the cancellation of Registration Certificate No. AMR. CST. 3391 also. Both these contentions were accepted by the learned single Judg .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he petitioner had not exhausted its remedies under the Sales Tax Act, the learned judge ought to have thrown out the petition on that score alone. The contention is devoid of merit. It must be remembered that the existence of an alternative remedy, statutory or otherwise, is not an absolute bar to the grant of the extraordinary relief under articles 226/227 of the Constitution. It is only a circumstance which the High Court, as a matter of practice, but not as a cast-iron rule of law, takes into account, while exercising its extraordinary powers under the aforesaid articles. The objection was raised before the learned single judge, who rejected it in these terms: "In the circumstances of this case, I find that the impugned order was passe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X