SHAM SUNDER AND SONS Vs. ASSESSING AUTHORITY HISSAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the correctness of the order passed by respondent No. 2 under section 40 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (for short "the Act") in this petition.

(2.) THE petitioner has an equally efficacious remedy by way of an appeal under section 39 of the Act. When a right or liability is created by a statute which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before seeking the discretionary remedy under article 226 of the Constitution. The question arising for determination depends upon appreciation of evidence. We decline to interfere in the matter until all the statutory remedies are exhausted. It will be useful to refer to the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1983] 53 STC 315 (SC); 1983 UJ (SC) 503, which reads as under :

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that section 25 (5) of the Act is violative of article 14 of the Constitution. He has not laid any foundation in the writ petition as to how the provisions are violative of article 14 of the Constitution nor he could substantiate the same during the course of his arguments. We decline to interfere until all the statutory remedies are exhausted.