BALIA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE writ petition No. 3971/2000 was filed by the petitioner- appellant challenging the assessment order dated 15. 07. 2000 (Annexure-3), which was passed under the Central Sales Tax Act by which inter-State sale of shoes and chappals relating to the category of footwears, which were not made of leather and whose value was upto Rs. 100 only. THE assessee has claimed that the sale related to footwears `a' class of which were not made of leather and whose value did not exceed Rs. 100/-, are generally exempted vide notification dated 7. 3. 94 issued by the State Govt. in exercise of its powers conferred under Sec. 4 (2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. THErefore, inter-State turnover of such goods was also exempt from CST under Sec. 8 (2-A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The assessee has relied on the decision of this Court reported in Shiv Sainath Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan & Another (1), in which the question that has been raised in the revision petition about the exemption claimed by the assessee under Sec. 8 (2-A) of the CST Act, 1956 with reference to notification dated 8. 03. 1988 issued by the State Govt. under Sec. 4 (2) of the RST Act, 1954. Under the said notification all kinds of footwear not manufactured or marketed by large scale or medium scale industries upto the value of Rs. 20, were exempted. The case of the revenue under Sec. 8 (2-A) of the Central Sales Tax Act was that the exemption under notification dated 8. 03. 1988 was not a general and unconditional exemption under the State Laws and therefore, no benefit could be availed under Sec. 8 (2-A) of the Central Sales Tax Act. It was the contention of the revenue in Shiv Sainath's case was that fixing of the value on goods and grant of exemption only to the small scale industries amounted to two conditions under which alone benefit could be availed under the Act of 1954, therefore, the exemption would not extend to the turnover which was taken place in the course of inter-State trade and commerce under Sec. 8 (2-A ). This Court has held that twin requirement of the notification dated 8. 03. 1988 related to identify the goods and the criterion laid down to identify the dealer in such class of goods in respect of which exemption is granted, are not the conditions or the specifications of circumstances relating to the turnover sought to be exempted from payment of tax within the meaning of Section 8 (2a ). It was also held that the facts which were required to be proved only to identify the dealer and goods in respect of which exemption is sought, are not conditions or specifications related to turnover sought to be considered relating to goods which have been exempted generally without any condition. For coming to this conclusion, this Court has relied on two decisions of the Supreme Court: (1) Pine Chemicals Ltd. vs. Assessing Authority (2) and (2) Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd. vs. State of Kerala
(3.) THE Assessing Officer in the present case relying on the decision of Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal, Ajmer rendered in the case of M/s. Ajay Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Bhiwadi (4), in which Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal has held that the exemption granted under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 under Sec. 4 (2) is not extended to turnover under the inter-State turnover. Levied tax on inter- State turnover of shoes upto value of Rs. 100/- which were not made of leather. THE tax levied on such turnover of Rs. 5,82,954/- @ 10% was set aside on appeal before Dy. Commissioner (Appeals ). THE order of Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) followed the circular dt. 23. 2. 98 issued by Commissioner. Said assessment under CST Act has been re-opened on the basis of audit objection and tax as aforesaid was again levied on the turnover which was exempt under item 5 of notification dt. 7. 3. 94. The petitioner has filed the writ petition without availing the alternative remedy before this Court. The writ petition has been dismissed solely on the ground of existence of an alternative remedy and reserving right of petitioner to pursue the alternative remedy of appeal. The writ petition was admitted after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents by over-ruling the objections as to maintainability of the writ petition inspite of existence of alternative remedy by pointing out the circumstances in which the existence of alternative remedy in the present case cannot be considered to be equally efficacious alternative remedy. ;