Guar Gum Chemicals Ltd. vs The Excise and Taxation Officer and Others

G.S. Singhvi, J.—This petition is directed against the assessment orders passed and the notices by the competent authorities under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973.

At the very outset we deem fit appropriate to notice the argument of the learned Advocate General that the petition be dismissed due to the failure of the petitioner to avail the statutory alternative remedies available to it.

We find considerable force in the submission of the learned Advocate General. The record of the case shows that the petitioner approached this Court without availing the alternative remedies of appeal/revision available to it under the Haryana General Sales Act, 1973. It appears that the writ petition was entertained and admitted by the Court because a large number of petitions involving challenge to the levy of purchase tax etc. and challenging the constitutional validity of the provisions contained in the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 were entertain by the High Court in the years 1989 and 1990.

In Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. State of Orissa and Others, and the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal Vs. Dunlop India Ltd. and Others, , the Supreme Court has reiterated the well established principle of law that in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, the High Court will not ordinarily entertain a petition when the petitioner has got an effective alternative remedy. In taking statutes, which provide for remedies for appeal and revision, this principle has to be applied with greater rigour. In Sachdeva and Sons Rice Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and Others, , this Court has also held that the interference with the order passed by the competent authority is not warranted in exercise of writ jurisdiction when the assessee is free to avail the alternative remedy by way of appeal. It has also been held that the requirement of deposit of tax as a condition precedent for entertaining the appeal cannot be a ground to ignore the well settled principle of law against the entertaining of the writ petition is such like matters.

In our opinion, the principles laid down in the above referred decisions deserve to be applied to this case and the petition deserves to be dismissed only on the ground of the failure of the petitioner to avail the statutory alternative remedy of appeal available to it.

For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is dismissed. The interim order passed by the Court on October 19, 1989 stands vacated automatically. The respondents shall now take appropriate steps, in accordance with law, for recovery of tax from the petitioner and also take proceedings for levy of interest and penalty. This direction shall be subject to any stay order which may have been passed by any other court in favour of the petitioners.

The respondents shall also get costs of Rs. 5000/- from the petitioner.