SALES TAX OFFICER, JODHPUR AND ANOTHER versus M/S. SHIV RATAN G. MOHATTA

Citation: [1965] 3 S.C.R. 71 · Decided: 12-02-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SALES TAX OFFICER, JODHPUR AND ANOTHER 
v. 
M/S. SHIV RATAN G. MOHATTA 
February 12, 1965 
71 
B 
IP.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH AND 
S.M. SIKRI, JJ.] 
CoJ>stitution of India. Arts. 226 and 286(1) (b)-Questions of fact 
to determine whether sale in the course of 
import~Therefore if 
State sales tax leviable-VFhether should be decided in writ pro-
ceed-ings. 
C 
The Sales Tax Officer rej«cled the assessee's claim that he was 
not liable :.a be assessed to sale.5. tax in respect of certain sales of ce-
ment imported from Pakistan because (i) he was not a deal€f with-
in the meaning of s.2(f) of the Rajasthan Act 29 of 1954, and (ii) the 
sales in question were iii the cJurse of the import within the mean-
ing of Art. 286(1) (b) of the Constitution. In the order of assess-
ment. there was no 'discussion of the question of applicability of 
D 
Art. 286(1) (b). 
The assessee therefore filed a petition under Art. 226 challeng-
ing the assessment order on the grounds taken before the Sales Tax 
Officer and aiso claiming that the latter had failed to c<Jnsider the 
impact and effect of Art. 286 (1) (b) on the facts of the case. The State 
objected to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the 
!)2titioner should have avciled of the alternative remedy of 
appeal 
E 
provided under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, but the High Court over-
ru'ed this objection for the reeson, inter alia, that the petitioner had 
challenged th~ appellant's jurisdiction to assess him to sales tax in 
view of the provisions of Art. 286(1) (b). Upon dealing with the merits 
cf the case, the High Court held that on the facts of the case it was 
cl,ea: that the sales in question took place when the goods \\'ere in the 
course o; imioort and therefore, by virtue of Art. 286(1) (b) were not 
F 
liable to sales tax. The court therefore quashed the order of assess-
ment. 
On appeal to this Court, it was contended on behalf of 
the State that the High Court should have refused to entertain the 
petition as many of the crucial facts had not been brought on the re-
cord by the respondent, and further-more, it was not established that 
the cement was sold in the course of import into India. 
G 
HELD: The High Court should not have decided the disputed 
questions of fact, but should merely have quashed the assessment 
order on the ground that the Sales Tax Officer had not dealt with 
the question raised before him and remanded the case. [77 Bl 
OBITER: The High c·ourt should have declined to 
entertain 
the petition, as in this case there were no exceptional circumstan-
H 
ces to warrant the exercis€ of the extraordinary jurisdiction under 
Art. 226. It was not the object of Art. 226 to convert High Courts 
into original or appellate assessing authorities whenever the asses-
see chose to attack an assessment order on the ground that a sa1e 
was made in the course of import and was therefore exempt from 
tax. The fact that an assessee might have to deposit sales tax when 
filing an appeal could not in every case justify his bypassing the 
remedies provided by the Sales Tax Act. There must be something 
mor2 :n a case to warrant the entertainment of a petition under 
.Art. 226, something going to the root of the jurisdiction of the Sales 
72 
SUPREME 
COURT 
REPORTS 
[1965] 3 s.c.R. 
Tax Officer something to show that it would be a case of ,palpable 
A 
injustice td the assessee to force him to adopt the remedies provi-
ded by the Act. f75 G, Hl 
A.V. Venkateswaran v. Ramehand Sobhraj 
Wadwani, 
A.I.R. 
1961 S.C. 1506, referred to. 
C!vrL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 652 of 1964. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated May 7, 1963 of 
B 
the Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 
157 of 1962. 
G.C. Kasliwal, Advocate-General for Rajasthan. K.K. Jain, 
for the appellants. 
M.D. Bhargava and B.D. Sharma, for the respondent. 
c 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Sikri, J. This appeal by certificate of fitness granted by the 
Ra jasthan High Court is directed against its judgment dated May 
7, 1963, quashing the order of assessment dated March 5, 1962, 
made by the Sales Tax Officer, Jodhpur City, in so far as it levied 
J) 
sales tax on the turnover of Rs. 23,92,252.75 np. 
The respondent, Mis Shiv Ratan G. Mohatta, which is a 
partnership firm having .its head office at Jodhpur, hereinafter re-
ferrd to as the assessee, claimed before the Sales 
Tax Officer 
that they were not li

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.