ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has come up with the present writ petitions, challenging the orders of assessment passed by the first respondent in all these writ petitions, under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, in respect of the assessment years 2001-2002, 2002-2003 and 2003-2004.

(2.) I have heard Mr.C.Natarajan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Haja Naziruddin, learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes). Since the petitioner bracketed a portion of the turnover as branch transfer and claimed to have paid tax in other States, but the same was disallowed by the first respondent, the petitioner has also impleaded the States of Kerala and Karnataka apart from the Union Territory of Pondicherry and the Union of India, as parties to the writ petitions. However, notices to them have been dispensed with, in view of the nature of the disposal that I propose to give to the writ petitions.

(3.) THOUGH several issues are raised in the writ petitions, it is not necessary or proper to go either into factual details or into the merits of the claim made on either side, in view of the admitted position that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. If the petitioner is found to be not justified in by-passing the alternative remedy, then they should be directed to avail the same. If the petitioner is found to be justified in directly approaching this Court, the only remedy that could be granted to them is to send the matter back to the Assessing Officer. In either case, I need not go into the merits of the claim. Therefore, the only question that I propose to decide is as to whether there was sufficient justification for the petitioner to invoke Article 226 and if so, to what remedy, the petitioner would be entitled.