9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 671X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t imposition of tax through orders dated January 16, 2004 (annexures 15 and 16) are illegal as the petitioner is entitled to exemption on the basis of notification dated March 6, 1978 (annexure 6) and circular dated May 26, 1995 (annexure 9). The facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under: (i) The petitioner Rishab Rolling and Grading Mills (hereinafter referred to as the firm ) is a proprietorship firm. (ii) The firm is inter alia, engaged in the business of processing and selling anaj, dal, masala, etc. In this regard, the petitioner got itself registered with the District Industries Centre, Bhilwara. A copy of the permanent registration certificate is marked as anneuxre 1. The petitioner-firm has also been recommended for tax exemption by Rajasthan Khadi and Gramodhyog Board. The recommendation certificate dated July 29, 1999 is marked as anneuxre 2. (iii) That the petitioner-firm is a registered dealer under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1994 ) and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1956 ). (iv) It is the further case of the petitioner that the controversy in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, the imposition of tax through assessment orders dated January 16, 2004 (annexures 15 and 16) are per se illegal and without jurisdiction and are liable to be set aside. That reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and a preliminary objection has been taken that since assessment orders dated January 16, 2004 (annexures 15 and 16) passed by respondent No. 3 (Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti Evasion) are appealable and first appeal lies under section 84 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the RST Act ) and thereafter second appeal lies under section 85 of the RST Act before the Rajasthan Tax Board and thereafter a revision lies under section 86 of the RST Act before this court and, therefore, in view of this fact, the present writ petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the work undertaken by the petitioner-firm cannot be termed or treated to be manufacture and consequently it cannot be treated to be sale of the products manufactured in the State and thus, the assessing authority rightly held that by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thorities may be referred to: (i) Thansingh Nathmal v. Superintendent Taxes [1964] 15 STC 468 (SC); AIR 1964 SC 1419. (ii) Kerala State Electricity Board v. Kurien E. Kalathil [2000] 6 SCC 293. (iii) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh [2000] 3 SCC 581. (iv) K.S. Rashid and Sons v. Income-tax Investigation Commission [1954] 25 ITR 167 SC; [1954] AIR 1954 SC 207. The High Court does not generally enter upon a determination of questions which demand an elaborate examination of evidence to establish the right to enforce which the writ is claimed. The High Court does not, therefore, act as a court of appeal against the decision of a court or Tribunal, to correct errors of fact and does not by assuming jurisdiction under article 226 trench upon an alternative remedy provided by statute for obtaining relief. Where it is open to the aggrieved petitioner to move another Tribunal, or even itself in another jurisdiction for obtaining redress in the manner provided by a statute, the High Court normally will not permit by entertaining a petition under article 226 of the Constitution, the machinery created under the statute to be bypassed, and will leave the party ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f granting writs. In other words, the existence of an alternative remedy is a rule of policy, practice and discretion and not a rule of law. It is a self imposed limitation and cannot oust the jurisdiction of the court. In exceptional circumstances, the High Court may grant relief under article 226, even if an alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person. The existence of an alternative remedy is no ground for refusing prohibition or certiorari where (a) the absence or excess of jurisdiction is patent and the application is made by the party aggrieved, or (b) there is an error apparent on the face of record, (c) there has been violation of the rules of natural justice, (d) where there has been a contravention of fundamental rights, (e) where the Tribunal acted under a provision of law which is ultra vires. Apart from this, when there is infringement of fundamental rights, where remedy cannot be said to be alternative and where remedy cannot be said to be adequate or equally efficacious and where the order is ultra vires, without jurisdiction or violative of natural justice, writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India can be enter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
