WHEELS INDIA LIMITED Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN W.P. No. 2830 of 1980, the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the assessment order dated 21st March, 1980, for the assessment year 1978-79 of the second respondent passed against the petitioner. In W.P. No. 3153 of 1980, the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the reassessment order dated 3rd May, 1980, for the assessment year 1974-75 of the second respondent against the petitioner. In W.P. No. 3154 of 1980, the petitioner prays for the issue of writ of certiorari to quash the reassessment order dated 3rd May, 1980, for the assessment year 1975-76 of the second respondent against the petitioner.

(2.) THE second respondent has passed the impugned order assessing wheels and top rollers manufactured by the petitioner and supplied to the Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi, as tractor parts taxable under entry 55 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner wants to have the said items manufactured by it taxed at multi-point rate. Mr. A. Devanathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would state that the wheels and top rollers manufactured by the petitioner and supplied to the Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi, cannot be classified as tractor parts taxable under entry 55 of the First Schedule and the said items can only be classified as component parts of a tank. Before this question could be further probed into, the Additional Government Pleader, representing the respondents, raised a preliminary objection as to the propriety of going into this question in writ jurisdiction and submits that the petitioner has got an adequate alternative remedy of appeals against the orders passed by the second respondent and further appeals against the orders to be passed by the appellate authority, and exploration into this question will involve an assessment of the aspect as to whether the wheels and the top rollers manufactured by the petitioner and supplied to the Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi, are spare parts of a tank as claimed by the petitioner or spare parts of a tractor as opined by the second respondent and on this ground, the learned Additional Government Pleader submits that the matter should be relegated for a decision by the authorities constituted under the Act to hear appeals against the orders of the second respondent.In Sakthi Sugars Limited v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer Veeraswami and Ramaprasada Rao, JJ. (as they then were), were dealing with the question as to whether the sugarcane setts are sugarcane and whether this Court can indulge in an investigation of a jurisdictional fact. The learned Judges opined as follows :

(3.) IN that case, the learned Judges were not facing any complicated question of fact on the above aspect and they had no difficulty in holding that sugarcane setts are botanical seeds from which spring sugarcane and nobody could supply sugarcane setts when sugarcane is asked for and in that context they expressed the opinion that sugarcane setts are not sugarcane as is understood in commerce and trade. In an earlier case, the same learned Judges, in T. P. Sokkalal Ramsait Factory P. Ltd. v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer delineated the scope of the powers of this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash orders of assessment or reassessment for which statutory remedies are available, in the following terms :