1951 (7) TMI 17 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of writ petitions under Article 226 when a regular appeal remedy was available.
2. Legality of Commissioner's order to pay taxes before hearing revision petitions.
3. Effect of failure to pay assessed taxes on appeal and revision remedies.
4. Discretion of the Court to grant relief under Article 226 when alternative remedies exist.

Analysis:

1. The petitioners filed writ petitions under Article 226 against the Sales Tax Officer's orders assessing them to tax. The respondent argued that since a regular appeal remedy was available under Section 20 of the Ordinance, the writ petitions were not maintainable. The Court held that every dealer receiving a notice under Section 11(3) had the right to appeal under Section 20, regardless of the legality of the notice. Thus, the petitioners failed to avail themselves of the appeal remedy, rendering the writ petitions unsustainable.

2. The Commissioner directed the petitioners to pay taxes before hearing their revision petitions. The petitioners contended that payment of tax was not a condition precedent for a revision petition. However, the Court found that the rules made the provisions regarding appeals applicable to revision petitions. As the petitioners had not paid the assessed taxes, they did not effectively utilize the revision remedy. Therefore, the Commissioner's order to pay taxes before hearing revision petitions was deemed lawful.

3. The failure of the petitioners to pay the assessed taxes within the specified time affected their appeal and revision remedies. While the petitioners approached the Commissioner for revision, it did not absolve them from not pursuing the appeal remedy. The Court emphasized that failure to pay taxes hindered the effectiveness of both appeal and revision remedies, leading to the conclusion that the petitioners did not fully utilize either remedy.

4. The Court considered the discretionary nature of granting relief under Article 226 when alternative effective remedies were available. Citing precedents, the Court highlighted that a writ should not be entertained if another adequate remedy exists. In this case, the petitioners rushing to the Court without exhausting the remedies provided by the Ordinance was deemed unjustified. As there was no evidence of authorities failing to discharge their duties, the Court dismissed the petitions, emphasizing the importance of exhausting available remedies before seeking relief under Article 226.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the writ petitions due to the petitioners' failure to exhaust the appeal remedy, non-payment of assessed taxes affecting the revision remedy, and the discretionary nature of granting relief under Article 226 when alternative remedies are available.