BISHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by this writ petition challenged the assessment order dated 12th March, 1986, and notice of demand issued in pursuance of this assessment order. THE petitioner carries on business in the name and style M/s. Jaambhad Furniture, Bikaner. THE petitioner is a registered dealer under the Sales Tax Act and holds registration No. 1831/78. THE petitioner submits that the petitioner has been submitting the regular returns and paying the sales tax dues. THE petitioner had submitted all his sales tax returns up to the quarter ending on 30th September, 1985, and had also paid all the sales tax dues. THE petitioner submits that the sales tax returns for the quarter ending on 31st December, 1985, were due on 30th January, 1986, but the petitioner could not submit these returns. THE return for the quarter from January to March, 1986, could be filed by the petitioner up to 30th April, 1986. It is further submitted that so far as the payment of the tax is concerned it is payable monthly as per notification dated 3rd June, 1970, within 21 days after the close of the third month of each quarter from the year of accounts. THE petitioner submits that so for as the month of January, 1986, is concerned the tax was payable up to 21 st February, 1986. During the month of January, 1986, the petitioner had supplied certain goods to the Military Engineering Services at Bikaner and Suratgarh for approval under challans. THE goods delivered by the petitioner were examined by the competent officers of the M. E. S. and finally by the C. D. A. , Western Command, Chandigarh. It is only after the acceptance of the goods by the C. D. A. , Western Command, that the sale of the material supplied by the petitioner can taken place. THE petitioner had no other sale except the deliveries made by the petitioner to the M. E. S. , Bikaner and Suratgarh. THE final acceptance of the goods delivered by the petitioner during the month of January, 1986, was not communicated to the petitioner up to the end of January, 1986. Hence no sale took place between the petitioner and the M. E. S. authorities till the end of January, 1986, as such the petitioner was not liable to pay tax up to 21st February, 1986.

(2.) THE petitioner received a notice for provisional assessment under section 7-B (exhibit 1) dated 5th March, 1986, from respondent No. 2. THE petitioner by this notice was called upon to show cause why a best judgment assessment is not made against him under section 7-B of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. He further submits that on 11th March, 1986, an inspector of the sales tax department visited the petitioner's premises and inspected the delivery vouchers of the goods delivered by the petitioner to the Garrison Engineers, M. E. S. , Suratgarh and Bikaner, and he also demanded a cheque for the amount of tax which according to him is payable on the said deliveries. THE petitioner gave a cheque for a sum of Rs. 14,166. He also submitted replies to the notices. THEreafter, the respondents issued a provisional assessment under section 7-B on 12th March, 1986, and issued a demand notice exhibits 3 and 4 respectively. THE provisional assessment order was passed on 12th March, 1986, ex parte. THEreafter, the petitioner submitted an application under section 10-C of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act for setting aside the ex parte provisional assessment passed on 12th March, 1986. THE same is still pending consideration before the Assistant Commercial Taxation Officer. But respondent No. 2 attached the bank account with the State Bank of India in its two branches situate at Dauji Road, Bikaner, and Gangashahar Road, Bikaner, vide order dated 25th March, 1986 (exhibits 6 and 7 respectively ). Respondent No. 2 also attached the petitioner's account with Garrison Engineers at Bikaner and Suratgarh, vide order dated 28th March (exhibits 8 and 9 respectively ). It is in these circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

(3.) IN Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal v. Dunlop INdia Ltd. AIR 1985 SC 330, it has been observed as under : " Article 226 is not meant to short circuit or circumvent statutory procedures. It is only where statutory remedies are entirely ill-suited to meet the demands of extraordinary situations, as for instance, where the very vires of the statute is in question or where private or public wrongs are so inextricably mixed up and the prevention of public injury and the vindication of public justice require it that recourse may be had to article 226 of the Constitution. But then the Court must have good and sufficient reason to by-pass the alternative remedy provided by statute. Surely matters involving the revenue where statutory remedies are available are not such matters. The Supreme Court can take judicial notice of the fact that the vast majority of the petitions under article 226 of the Constitution are filed solely for the purpose of obtaining interim orders and thereafter prolong the proceedings by one device or the other. The practice needs to be strongly discouraged. "