STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. NENU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by certificate from a judgment of the rajasthan High Court involving the question whether the respondent was liable to pay sales tax for supplying and fixing wooden windows and doors together with frames and painting them when the construction of the police lines building took place at a place called Pali.

(2.) The respondent is an approved contractor of the Public Works Department of the State. Tenders were invited by the Chief Engineer for doing the work mentioned above in April or May, 1958. The respondent's tender being the lowest was accepted by the Executive Engineer by means of a letter dated July 17, 1958, wherein it was stated "the chowkhats will have to be supplied and fixed at site along with the masonry work". The amount which was payable for the entire work was Rs. 1,81,528. While making the assessment for the year 1959-60 the Sales Tax Officer was of the view that the total sales made by the respondent amounted to Rs. 1,97,212. The position taken up by the respondent was that the making of doors and windows as also the frames was a part of a single and indivisible works contract and as such no tax was payable. The Sales Tax Officer, however, did not accept this contention and held the respondent liable for payment of tax on sales of materials of the value already stated, the actual demand created being for Rs. 6,314. 07, on the above turnover. The respondent preferred an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner, Excise and Taxation, but the appeal was dismissed because the respondent's prayer for permission to file it without depositing the tax was not acceded to. The respondent then filed a petition in the High Court under article 226 of the constitution.

(3.) In the High Court a good deal of argument proceeded on the maintainability of the writ petition. The appellant contended, inter alia, that the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, hereinafter called the "act", was a comprehensive and self-contained enactment which provided for a complete set of remedies for the assessee to get his grievances redressed. As the respondent had failed to avail of those remedies the High Court should not grant relief in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The high Court was of the opinion that the present case was one of levy and recovery of tax which was entirely illegal and therefore the court was duty bound to give the necessary relief to the assessee even if he had not availed of the statutory remedies open to him under the Act.