TIN PLATE CO. OF INDIA LTD. versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 547 · Decided: 05-11-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. BHARUCHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

TIN PLATE CO. OF INDIA LTD. 
A 
ll. 
STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 5, 1998 
[S.P. BHARUCHA AND V.N. KHARE, JJ.) 
B 
Constitution of India-Article 226-Jurisdiction of the High Court-In 
cases an efficacious alternative remedy available to the writ petitioners-
Scope of-Held, it would be a sound exercise of discretion to refuse to entertain C 
the writ petition-However, while dismissing the writ petition on such ground, 
High Court should refrain from expressing any opinion touching upon the 
merits of the case-Practice and Procedure-Writ petition-Alternative remedy. 
Appellant, manufacturer of tinplates, was registered under State Sales 
Tax Act as well as Central Sales Tax Act. For a particular assessment year D 
the appellant filed its return. The Commercial Tax Officer disallowed the 
entire claim of stock transfer to outside States and treating the same as inter-
state sales and levied tax@ 10% thereon and issued a notice of demand. 
The appellant challenged the assessment order and the notice of demand in 
a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court accepting the 
objection of respondent that the appellant had an equally efficacious E 
alternative remedy, however, made certain observations touching upon the 
merits of the case. The appellant filed an lippeol against the assessment 
before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) along with· 
an application for condoning the delay in view of the pendency of the writ 
petition before the High Court. The Joint Commissioner of Commercial F 
Taxes (Appeals) rejected the appeal in view of the observation made by the 
High Court on the merits of the case. Appellant then filed a review petition 
before the High Court but the same was rejected. Hence this Appeal. 
It was contended by the appellant that certain observations of the High G 
Court touching upon the merits of the case while dismissing the writ petition 
filed by the appellant on the ground of efficacious alternative remedy has 
prejudiced the case of the appellant before the Appellate Authority who was 
bound to decide the case in terms of the observations made by the High 
Court. 
547 
H 
548 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
B 
HELD: 1.1. It is no doubt true that when an alternative and equally 
efficacious remedy is open to a person, he should be required to pursue that 
remedy and not to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court 
under Article 226 of the Constitution and where such a remedy is available, 
it would be a sound exercise of discretion to refuse to entertain the writ 
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. (550-B) 
1.2. If a writ petition is to be dismissed on the ground of alternative 
remedy, the High Court is not required to express any opinion on merits of 
C the case which is to be pursued before an alternative forum. Thus, if the 
High Court is to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of alternative 
remedy, it would be a sound exercise of jurisdiction to refrain itself from 
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case which ultimately is to be 
taken by a person before an alternative forum. (550-D-E) 
D 
1.3. In the present case, in view of the observations made by the High 
Court, the Appellate Authority has rejected the appellant's appeal at the 
threshold and the appellant has been left without any remedy under the law. 
In such circumstances, the observations made by the High Court in its 
judgment on merits of the case was totally on-called for and deserves to be 
E set aside. [ 550-F) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1782 of 
1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.6.96 of the Patna High Court in 
F C.W.J.C. No. 404 of 1994. 
H.N. Salve, M.P. Jha, Nikhil Sakhardhande, Ram Ekbal Roy and Pawan 
Kumar for the Appellant. 
H.L. Aggarwal, B.B. Singh and Kumar Rajesh Singh for the 
G Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
V.N. KHARE, J. The appellant herein is a company registered under 
the Indian Companies Act having its registered office at Bankshal Street, 
H Calcutta in the State of West Bengal and factory at Jamshedpur in the State 
PLATE CO. OF INDIA LTD. v. STATE [V.N. KHARE,J.) 
549 
of Bihar. The appellant manufactures tinplates and black plates in its factory A 
at Jamshedpur and is registered under the Bihar Sales Tax Act and Central 
Sales Tax Act. 
For the assessment year 1985-86, the appellant had filed its return. The 
Commercial Tax Off
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.