STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS versus M/S. INDIAN HUME PIPE CO. LTD.

Citation: [1977] 3 S.C.R. 120 · Decided: 03-03-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI, S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

120 
A 
STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS 
v. 
M/S. INDIAN HUME PIPE CO. LTD. 
March 3, 1977 
[P. N. BHAGWATI AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL Au, JJ.] 
B 
l~onsriturion of India-Article 136-Practice of Suprenu' Court-Interfe-
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
rence with d1.scretio11ary orders of High Court-Article 226___..:..WJiether 
Hif;:/1 
C'ourl should interfere-Alternative ren1edies. 
I nterprt'/ation-A rticles used for business purposes-Whether in co1nn1er-
cial sense-U.P. Sales Tax Act-Meaning of sanitary fittings. 
The respondent manufactures and sells hume pipes and high quality an<l 
high pressure pipes. 
The pipes are reinforced concrete pipes. 
The U.P. 
(Joycrnment issued a notification under the U.P. Sales Tax Act providing that 
"sanitary fittings" were to be taxed -at 7 per cent instead of 2 per cent. 
The 
Sales Tax Officer treated hume pipes supplies by the respondent as sanitary fit-
tings and imposed sales tax @ 7 per cent. The respondent filed a writ petition in 
the High Court as.sailing the order of the Sales Tax Officer on the ground that the 
humc pipes manufactured by the asscssee could not by any stretch of imagination 
be construed to be sanitary fittings nor \Vere they ever used as such. 
The High 
Court after perusing the materials on record and hearing couns~l- accepted the 
ple.'l of the respondent and held that the hume pi:ics could not be treated as 
sanitary ticting~. 
The High Court accordingly quashed the assessment made 
by the Sale.s Tax Officer. 
The respondent also filed certificates of Locn·! Self 
Government Engineering Department, U.P. to show that the 
pipes 
supplied 
by the respondent were not used as sanitary fittings. 
The ~aid certificate has 
been signed by the Executive Engineer on behalf of the ·chief Engineer 
of 
the deparl1nent. 
In an appeal by certificate the ·appellant contended : 
( 1) Jii.i;:h Court should not have entertained the writ petition and 
snould have allov.·ed the assessee to avail of the remedies pro-
vided to him unJer the U.P. Sales Tax Act particularly when 
question of fact had to be determined. 
(2) On merits the conclusion of the Hill:h 
3re not sanitary fitdngs is erroneous. 
by cc1 tificatc. 
Court that hume pipes 
Dismissing the appeal 
Held : ( 1) The Court ne&ative.d the contention of the appellant that the 
High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition <ind should have 
allowed the assessee to avail of the remedies provided to him under 
the 
U.P. Sales "fax Act. 
In the present case, whether the hume pipes manufactur-
ed and sold by the respondent were sanit;iry fittings was a question of.Jaw and 
since tbe entice material on the basis of ,vhich this question could be determined 
was placed be.fore the Sales Tax Officer and had pointed in one and only one 
direction, nan1ely, that the hume pipes were not sanitary fittings and there wai; 
nothing to show otherwise, the High Court was justified in 
entertairiing 
the 
,vrit petition. 
There is no rule of law that the High Court should not enter-
tain a writ petition where an alternative remedy is available to a party. 
Jt 
is ahvays a matter of discretion and if the discretion has not been exercised 
by the HiJ;?;h Court unreasonably or perversely, it is the settled practice 
of 
this Court not to interfere y,·ith the exercise of discretion by the High 
Court. 
Jn these circumstances this Court would not be justified in the interest of justice 
to intedere under Article 136 of the Constitution to quash the order of the High 
Court merely on that ground after having found that the order was 
legaUy 
correct. 
[124 B·E] 
(2) It is "ell-settled that in construcina- the articles used for bu:!!ines!. pur· 
poses the terms must be interpreted in a prnely commercial sens1~. [123 B·Cl 
I 
U.P. v. INDIAN HUME PIPE (Fazal Ali, J.) 
121 
Ran1avatar Budhaiprasad etc. v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer. Ako/a (1962) 
A 
SCR 279. 282. followed. 
The King v. Planters Nut and Chocolate Company Ltd., (1951) Canada 
L.R. Ex. Court 122. 126 approved. 
So construed, by sanitary fittings one only understands such pipes 
or 
materials as are used in lavatories, urinals or bath rooms of private houses or 
public butld1t:il,!S. 
In the present case there was absolutely no material before 
the Sales Tax Officer to show that any of the hume pipes manufactured and 
B 
sold by the rc5pondent were meant for use in lavatories, urinals or bath rooms 
and, in fact, the material was used entirely the other way, the Sales 
Tax 
Officer was not a

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