B S L LTD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE five petitions have been filed by M/s. BSL Ltd. By these petitions, which are identical in nature, the petitioner which is a Company duly constituted and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 has challenged the show cause notice issued to it by the Commercial Taxes Department, Bhilwara, Govt. of Rajasthan. Since all the petitions involve identical questions of fact and law, with the consent of the parties, they were heard together and hence, this common order.

(2.) THE petitioner purchased diesel from Indian Oil Corporation and Bharat Petroleum Corporation during the relevent assessment year and concessional tax and surcharge was paid on it @ 3% instead of 4@ as was leviable and in so doing, the Company has misused the ST Form No. 17. According to the Department, therefore, this payment of tax @ 3% instead of 4% amounts, in the circumstances, to evasion of tax and hence, notice to show cause was issued why the Company should not be penalised for such misuse and evasion.

(3.) I would deal with the last objection of Shri Vineet Kothari first. The question as to whether the matter or a writ petition already admitted on final hearing can be dismissed on the ground of existence of alternative remedy or not is no longer res integra in so far as this Court is concerned. I am in respectful agreement with the views expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in Laxman Singh Verma vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. (2)In this case, it has been specifically observed that even after admission of writ petition ex-parte, it is open to respondents to resist the writ petition on all available grounds including ground of maintainability of petition on the ground of efficacious alternative remedy available under Statute. I am in respectful agreement with the views expressed by the Division Bench judgment and is also binding on this Court. This judgment was delivered on 5. 11. 99. Thereafter another Division Bench of this Court took up on a reference made by Justice Dr. B. S. Chauhan by his order dated 24. 7. 97 whereby he has specifically referred the question as to whether the cases pending since 1985 can be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy being available. It came up for adjudication before a Division Bench of this Court on 1. 8. 2000 and relying on Gopi Chand Teli vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), judgment of this Court as also the decision of the Supreme Court in Sumedico Corporation and another vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (3) took the view that petitions pending final hearing can be dismissed on the ground of existence of alternative remedy relegating the party to alternative remedy. I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed in this case also. It will thus be seen that two different Division Benches, both of which are binding on me, have taken the view that where alternative remedy exists merely because the matter is admitted, it need not be heard on merits only and can be dismissed for existence of alternative remedy. In so far as this Court is concerned, therefore, the question is no longer res integra and need no further consideration by me. I reject the contention of Shri Vineet Kothari in this regard.