KOTA BOM MANUFACTURING CO Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTS leading to this writ petition are that the petitioner, M/s. Kota Box Manufacturing Co. , is a registered partnership firm and is carrying on business to manufacture cartons, etc. , at Kota. The petitioner-company is a dealer under the provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ).

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that it manufactures cartons, box, cones made of paper, which are used for packing the goods. Craft paper is used for the manufacture of cartons and box. Paper rolls are nothing but cratf paper exclusively used for packing purposes. Pigeon partition sets, disc, rings are also packing materials and form part and parcel of the cartons. THE cartons manufactured by the petitioner are used for packing nylon, polyester yarn, would on cones, cheese and bobbin for sale and delivery to the customers. In a carton craft paper bitumnised packing material, pigeon partition set, disc, right-top, bottom and side-liner are used. All these things taken together form a carton. Corrugated rolls or paper rolls are used in packing. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 5 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, the State Government notified vide Notification No. F. 2 (8)FD/gr. IV/75-9 dated 1st July, 1975, that the rate of tax payable by a dealer in respect of the goods specified in column 2 of the list annexed to, shall be as shown against them in column 3 of the said list. THE relevant portion of the notification is reproduced as under : " No. Description of goods : Rate of tax 7 Cartons, box, cones, and cylinders made of paper or cardboards. 4 per cent 8 Packing material, that is to say, - 4 per cent (a) gunny bags and hessian (b) jute twine (c) craft paper and craft paper-bags (d ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "

(3.) I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition only against a show cause notice issued to it under section 12 of the Act. The petitioner has ample opportunity to appear before the assessing authority and to raise all the contentions before him, which have been raised before this Court in the present writ petition. There is a complete machinery of appeal and revision provided under the Act and this Court does not entertain a writ petition against the issuing of notice only, unless it is held that the assessing authority had not jurisdiction to issue such notice. A Division Bench of this Court in Bhanwarlal Binjaram's case 1976 WLN (UC) 459 had already held : " The writ petition cannot be entertained when the petitioner had an equally efficacious alternative remedy by way of appeal, revision and case stated. The Act has set up a complete machinery and hierarchy of Tribunals where these questions can be agitated. "