Subba Rao, J. - (1.) This appeal, by special leave, raises the scope of the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Sales Tax under R 83 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947.
(2.) The facts may be briefly stated. The appellant is a private limited company carrying on business mainly as building contractors in the State of Orissa. He was a registered dealer under the provisions of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, hereinafter called the Act. He was assessed to sales tax under Ss. 12, sub-section (4) of the Act in respect of all quarters ending on and in between June 30, 1949 to March 31, 1954. He was also assessed to sales tax under S. 12. sub-section (8) of the Act in respect of all quarters ending on and between the dates September 30, 1949 to March 31, 1950. Towards the said assessments between December 6, 1950 to June 1954, he paid by way of sales tax sums amounting to Rs. 52,220-14-0. On August 27, 1954 on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madras vs. Gannon Dunkerley and Co., (Madras) Ltd., (1959) SCR 379 the appellant filed a petition in the High Court of Orissa under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of certiorari to quash the said assessments. On April 22, 1958 the said High Court quashed the said assessments and directed refund of that portion of the tax which was not barred by limitation on the date of the filing of the said application. On July 9, 1958 the appellant filed an application before the Sales Tax Officer for the refund of the amounts payable to him in view of the said decision. On May 15, 1961 the Sales Tax Officer while holding that the appellant was entitled to the refund of the amounts paid by him, rejected his application on the ground that it was filed only by one of the directors whereas it should have been filed jointly by all the parties. On May 15, 1962 the Commissioner of Sales Tax, respondent No. 2 in this appeal, in a revision filed against the said order, set aside the order of the Sales Tax Officer and held that the appellant was entitled to the refund applied for and directed the said Officer to issue refund payment orders as early as possible. On January 5, 1963 the said Commissioner issued a notice to the appellant under R. 83 of the said Rules calling upon him to show cause why the order dated May 15, 1962 should not be reviewed. On September 24, 1963 the said Commissioner reviewed his previous order and held that the appellant would be entitled to refund of the taxes paid subject to the disallowances made in his order. Hence the present appeal.
(3.) Mr. Mahajan, the learned counsel for the respondents, raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that the appellant could not file the appeal unless it had exhausted the remedy under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. There are no merits in this contention. Art. 136 confers a discretionary appellate jurisdiction on this Court against any order passed by any Tribunal in the territory of India. The said jurisdiction is not subject to any condition that the party who seeks special leave of this Court to appeal from such order, to exhaust all his other remedies. The existence of a statutory remedy to such a party may persuade this Court not to give leave to appeal to the party. In the present case, the Act does not provide for a further remedy against the order made by the Commissioner in revision. Under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court's jurisdiction is discretionary and the scope of the jurisdiction, in view of the decisions of this Court. is rather limited. In the circumstances we do not see any justification to throw out this appeal on the ground that the appellant has not exhausted all his remedies.;