Case Details

Citation(s)
1960 SLG 152 1960 SLD 152 1960 PTD 57
Orissa High Court
Original Jurisdiction Case No. 82 of 1958, decision dated: 7th September 1959
R.L. NARASIMHAM, C.J., AND G. C. DAS, J
M. Mohanty and N. C. Mohanty for Petitioner. G. K. Misra for Opposite Party

ORISSA MINERAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD

VS

COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, ORISSA

Law: Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)

Section:

Sales Tax--Writ Existence of alternative remedy Effect- Assessee not availing ordinary remedy within period of limitation Maintainability of application under Article 226, Constitution of India Right of appeal conferred when application is pending in High Court Remedy of assessee. The existence of an alternative remedy may not always be a sufficient ground for the High Court to refuse to exercise its jurisdiction tinder Article 226 of the Constitution of India and cases may arise where the unconstitutionality or the illegality of the order tinder challenge is so apparent that notwithstanding the existence of the alternative remedy the High Court may interfere under that Article. But at the same time a party should not be permitted to escape the rigorous effects of the law of limitation by applying to the High Court under Article 226 after the expiry of the period prescribed by law to get relief from the appropriate revisional or appellate authorities. When an application under Article 226 was pending in the High Court the Legislature stepped in and conferred on the aggrieved party a regular right of appeal to an independent judicial tribunal, the party should be directed to seek his redress before that tribunal and should not be permitted to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226. An assessee is expected to know the change in the sales tax law brought about by an Amending Act and if, by his own laches, he does not avail himself of the right of appeal conferred by that Act and allows it to become time barred, he cannot ask the High Court to save him from the effects of the law of limitation. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Muhammad Noor A I R 1958 S C 86 ref. JUDGMENT NARASIMHAM, C. J. --In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution the validity of the assessment of the petitioner to sales tax was challenged. On behalf of the sales tax department, however, Mr. G. K. Misra raised a preliminary objection on the ground that on the facts as stated by the applicant himself tie had an alternative remedy by way of a regular appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal and that consequently this Court should not exercise its…
πŸ”’
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492