LAWS(APH)-1994-10-56

BADRINATH OIL COMPANY Vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER (INT)

Decided On October 27, 1994
Badrinath Oil Company Appellant
V/S
Asst. Commissioner (INT) Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a proprietary firm. The grievance of the petitioner is that the inspecting authorities by using undue influence and coercion collected a tax of Rs. 8,700/ - on the alleged stock variation of 6,210 Kgs. of Palolein Oil valued at Rs. 1,75,758/ - on the ground that the relevant sales were not recorded in the books of account. It is further stated that the inspecting authorities under threat of arrest and imprisonment collected a further sum of Rs. 17,400/ - towards compounding fees. It is these proceedings which are now questioned in the writ petition. Sri S. Krishna Murty, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that, in view of the provisions of Section 32(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') and the bar of civil suit under Section 36 of the Act the petitioner has no alternative remedy except to question the impugned proceedings under article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) IT is true that the impugned order is a final order in view of the provisions of sub -section (2) of Section 32 of the Act. So far as the bar of the suit is concerned, it is provided under Section 36 of the Act, Section 36 reads as follows:

(3.) IN the view we have expressed above, a suit is maintainable to question the collection of tax which is allegedly done under undue influence and coercion and under the threat of arrest and imprisonment. Therefore, the petitioner has an alternative remedy. Further, the questions whether particular proceedings were initiated illegally and whether the tax and compounding fee were collected under undue influence and coercion and under the threat of arrest and imprisonment, are matters which cannot be decided in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as evidence has to be let in and detailed enquiry is necessary. In this view of the matter, we dismiss the writ petition leaving it open to the petitioner to question the impugned order in an appropriate civil court.