9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (3) TMI 1013X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the assessment year 1997-98. It has also prayed for initiation of proceedings against respondent No. 4 under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 2.. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture of country liquor. It is registered as a dealer under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for short, the Act ). By an order dated October 31, 2000, respondent No. 3 framed the assessment for the year 1997-98 and created a demand of Rs. 98,50,561 by holding that glass bottles used as packing material/ containers for country liquor constitute as an independent commodity which is liable to tax at the rate applicable to the goods specified in entry 23 of Schedule A of the Act. The petitioner challen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fides of respondent No. 4. He further argued that the decision of the Karnataka High Court in State of Karnataka v. Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd. [1981] 48 STC 169 does not have any bearing on the issue of levy of tax of bottles at a higher rate under the Act and respondent No. 4 has committed a serious illegality by creating demand against the petitioner by relying on the said decision. 5.. At the hearing, we asked the learned counsel as to why the petitioner may not be relegated to the alternative remedy of appeal available under section 20 of the Act. Shri Jain responded to this query by arguing that article 226 does not contain any bar to the entertaining of a writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy and in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in a case arising out of a suit brought for a declaration that the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer was nullity. While declining to entertain the claim, Lord Uthwatt, J., declared the law in the following words: ...........In the provenance of tax where the Act provided for a complete machinery which enabled an assessee effectively to raise in the courts the question of validity of an assessment denied an alternative jurisdiction to the High Court to interfere. 8.. The proposition laid down in the aforementioned decision was approved by a three Judges Bench in Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1983] 53 STC 315 (SC); AIR 1983 SC 603. In that case, the appellant had challenged the order of assessment pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 336 at. 356 in the following passage: 'There are three classes of cases in which a liability may be established founded upon statute. ................ But there is a third class, viz., where a liability not existing at common law is created by a statute which at the same time gives a special and particular remedy for enforcing it ....................... The remedy provided by the statute must be followed, and it is not competent to the party to pursue the course applicable to cases of the second class. The form given by the statute must be adopted and adhered to.' The rule laid down in this passage was approved by the House of Lords in Neville v. London Express Newspaper Ltd. [1919] AC 368 and has been reaffirmed by the Privy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recourse may be had to article 226 of the Constitution. But then the court must have good and sufficient reason to by-pass the alternative remedy provided by statute. Surely matters involving the revenue where statutory remedies are available are not such matters.... 10.. In State of Goa v. Leukoplast (India) Ltd. [1997] 105 STC 318; (1997) 3 JT 322, the Supreme Court reversed the order passed by the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court vide which it had quashed the order of assessment passed under the Central Sales Tax Act. One of the grounds on which the Supreme Court upset the order of the High Court was petitioner's failure to avail the statutory alternative remedy. Their Lordships invoked the rule laid down in Titaghur Paper Mi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ised by the petitioner. It is quite possible that the appellate authority and ultimately the High Court may not approve the reasons recorded by respondent No. 4, but that cannot be a ground for allowing the petitioner to by-pass the statutory remedy of appeal. 13.. We are also not impressed by the argument of Shri Jain that the remedy of appeal available to the petitioner is burdensome and, therefore, the court should directly entertain the petition, cannot be accepted in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Anant Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat AIR 1975 SC 1234 and Shyam Kishore v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (1993) 1 SCC 22. 14.. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
