judgment

1. Section 5(2)(a). (v) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. provides: "(2) In this Act the expression taxable turnover means in the case oi a dealer who is liable to pay tax under Section 4 or under sub-section (3) of Section 8, that part of bis gross turnover during any period which remains after deducting therefrom-

(a) his turnover during that period on-

(i) .............

(ii).............

(iii)............

(iv).............

(v) sales of goods which are shown to the satisfaction of the Cominissioner not to have taken place in West Bengal, or to have taken place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, within the meaning of Section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, or in the course of import of the goods into, or export of the good; out of, the territory of India, within the meaning of Section 5 of that Act."

2. The respondent-company carries on the business of a colliery. Pursuant to an agreement between the Government of India and the Government of Pakistan, the former agreed to release certain quantities of coal for consumption in East Pakistan. The respondent-company delivered coal to the Fuel Inspector, Eastern Bengal Railway. East Pakistan, of the total valueof Rs. 88, 929/10/-. In respect of this supply of coal, bills were drawn by the respondent in the name of the Deputy Goal Commissioner (P),Ministry of Steel and Minos, Government of India, Under an arrangement betwen the Government of India and the Government of Pakistan, the price of coal so supplied was to be realised by the Government of India from the Covernment of Pakistan. In respect of this supply, the tax authorities of the State. of West Bengal levied sales-tax under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act 1941. The contention raised by the respondent company that it was exempt from liability to pay sales- tax under Section 5(2) (a), (v) was rejected by the Sales-tax Officer and by the Deputy Commissioner in appeal. Without invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue, the respondent moved a petition before the High Court of Calcutta under Article 226, challenging the levy. The petition filed by the respondent was dismissed by Single Judge, but on appeal under the Letters Patent, the claim was allowed and the High Court declared that the respondent was exempt from liability to pay sales-tax in respect of coal supplied to the Government of Pakistan. Against that order of the High Court, this appeal has been filed by the State of West Bengal.

3. It is urged in the first instance tht the High Court was incompetent to entertain the writ petition because the respondent had failed to exhaust the statutory remedies premissible under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act. It was submitted that a revision application lay to the Board of Revenue, and without moving the Board of Revenue, the respondent could not file a petition before the High Court. There is no substance in this contention. It is true that normally before a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is entertained, the High Court would insist that the party aggrieved by the order of a quasi-judicial tribunal should have recourse to the statutory authorities, which have power to give relief. But that is a rule cf practice and not of jurisdiction. In appropriate cases, the High Court may entertain a petition even if the aggrieved party has not exhausted the remedies available under a statute before the departmental authorities. In the present case, in the view of the High Court a case was made out for its interference with the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, and we see no reason to hold that the High Court had not properly exercised jurisdiction in this case. The facts were apparently not in dispute, and the only question was whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents were entitled to the exemption claimed by them. In the circumstances the High Court cannot be said to have acted improperly in entertaining the petition.

4. It was then u