The word "garment" in the notification issued under section 4(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, meant any article of clothing irrespective of the fact whether it is visible to another or not. It is the use of covering human body which gives content to the word.

BERI, J. - This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax, Assistant Sates Tax Officer and the State of Rajasthan, respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively, from recovering any sales tax on certain hosiery goods manufactured and sold by the petitioner and for quashing the order of the respondent No. 2, dated 29th June, 1960.

The petitioner carries on the business of manufacturing amongst other articles cotton vests (banians), underwears (jangias), mufflers and "topas", the cost of which does not exceed Rs. 4 each, in the City of Jaipur. The State Government, respondent No. 3, in exercise of its powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (Act XXIX of 1954), by Notification No. F. 5(3) E&T/58 dated 31st January, 1958, exempted from the levy of sales tax, "the sale of any garment within prepared within or imported from outside Rajasthan the value of which does not exceed Rs. 4 in single piece, from payment of any tax under the said Act". The petitioner kept on submitting his returns until June, 1958, without claiming exemption under the notification when he learnt of the existence of this notification. Even thereafter he submitted his quarterly returns in 1958 as well as in a part of 1959 on the old basis. When the question of assessment came up before the Sales Tax Officer, Jaipur City, Circle 'B', on 29th June, 1960, for the year 1958-59, on behalf of the petitioner an objection was taken that his total turnover consisted of sales of underwears, cotton vests etc., the price of each piece of which did not exceed Rs. 4 and, therefore, was exempted under the notification mentioned above. The Assistant Sales Tax Officer dealing with the case held that although on test check it was found that the sale price of the goods sold by the petitioner did not exceed Rs. 4 a piece, nevertheless they were not the garments which were exempt from tax under the notification. He accordingly rejected the contention of the petitioner and made him liable to pay the tax less what he had already paid. A demand was served upon the petitioner against which he preferred an appeal but the Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax (Appeals) refused to entertain the appeal unless the tax was deposited as required by the law. The petitioner has now come up by means of this petition to this Court and has asked for reliefs, we have already noticed.

The respondents have contested the present petition, without disputing the facts, mainly on the ground that the petitioner had an alternative remedy by way of an appeal and reference under the Sales Tax Act and due to the existence of such an alternative remedy this Court should decline to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was further urged in the course of the arguments that a garment means an outer covering and did not include the articles manufactured by the petitioner.

Before we proceed to examine the merits of the case it will be appropriate to consider the preliminary objection raised by the respondents. It is correct to state that under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, remedies by way of appeal, revision and reference are provided. It is equally true that an appeal cannot be heard unless the tax demanded has already been deposited. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that this Court should interfere firstly because the petitioner having already appealed but his appeal was not entertained merely because he had to deposit the demanded tax as a condition precedent for the hearing of his appeal. Therefore, the alternative remedy is an onerous one. Secondly, he has placed before us a judgment of the Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax, (Appeals), Jaipur, M/s. Nisar Ahmed Faiyaz Ahmed, Jaipur, in relation to the case of another assessee wherein he had held that hosiery goods are not garments and, therefore, are not exem