9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (7) TMI 390X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se writ petitions the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1872 of 1985 (Lodha Fabrics, Pali v. State of Rajasthan) are taken into consideration. All these writ petitions have been directed against the assessment orders by the Commercial Taxes Officer. At the outset the question is that whether such writ petitions should be entertained or not. Mr. K.C. Bhandari, learned counsel for the Revenue, has brought to my notice that it is settled proposition of law which has been laid by their Lordships of the Supreme Court repeatedly that under the taxing statutes when complete machinery has been created then extraordinary jurisdiction should only be involved in extraordinary circumstances. In normal course the petitioners should have filed an a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the High Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution ignoring as it were, the complete statutory machinery. That it has become necessary, even now, for us to repeat this admonition is indeed a matter of tragic concern to us. Article 226 is not meant to short-circuit or circumvent statutory procedures. It is only where statutory remedies are entirely illsuited to meet the demands of extraordinary situations, as for instance where the very vires of the statute is in question or where private or public wrongs are so inextricably mixed up and the prevention of public injury and the vindication of public justice require it that recourse may be had to article 226 of the Constitution. But then the court m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that in view of the judgment of the Board of Revenue in the case of Indian National Hosiery Factory v. Commercial Taxes Officer, Ajmer 1979 RRD 18 no useful purpose will be served by approaching the machinery created under the Act because the judgment of the Board of Revenue will be binding on them. Then he moved an application for amendment in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3282 of 1984 (Lodha Fabrics, Pali v. State of Rajasthan) seeking to challenge the validity of section 2(mm) by this amendment. Mr. Mehta also raised various other contentions on merits also and tried to impress by citing plethora of cases that this Court should interfere in this matter because it involves question that whether the petitioner is entitled to benefit of exe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hed the machinery created under the Act of 1954 as they are bound by the judgment of the Board of Revenue. I have gone through the judgment of the Board of Revenue in the case of Indian National Hosiery Factory 1979 RRD 18. This case was regarding the use of caustic soda as raw material for hosiery industry. But the case before us is of dyeing and printing and the question is whether caustic soda is necessary raw material for this purpose or not. This depends upon the question of fact that whether caustic soda is a raw material or not for the purpose of dyeing and printing. The order of the Board of Revenue is for the hosiery purpose and not for the purpose of dyeing and printing. Thus, an attempt was made by Mr. Mehta to somehow persuade m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that since he is challenging the validity of raw material as given under section 2(mm) therefore this Court should interfere in this matter. Now so far as the question regarding validity of section 2(mm) is concerned, I do not find it unconstitutional in any respect. Section 2(mm) reads as under: "'Raw material' means an article used as an ingredient in any manufactured goods, and includes fuel and lubricant required for the process of manufacture, but does not include bullion and specie." A bare reading of section 2(mm) clearly shows that articles which are ingredient for manufacturing goods shall be known as raw material. Thus, for manufacturing any goods or the necessary ingr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... special appeals against this decision of A.K. MATHUR, J. B.C. Mehta, for the appellants. B.R. Mehta, Deputy Government Advocate, for the respondents. JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was delivered by S.C. AGRAWAL, J.-These special appeals are directed against the order dated June 20, 1986 passed by the learned single Judge (printed at page 146 supra) whereby the writ petitions filed by the appellants have been dismissed. In the said writ petitions the appellants had challenged the assessment orders passed by the Commercial Taxes Officer. Learned single Judge, while dismissing the writ petitions, has held that alternative remedy of appeal and revision in this Court was available to the appellants under the Rajasthan Sales Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
