Honble PALSHIKAR, J.–These five petitions have been filed by M/s. BSL Ltd. By these petitions, which are identical in nature, the petitioner which is a Company duly constituted and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 has challenged the show cause notice issued to it by the Commercial Taxes Department, Bhilwara, Govt. of Rajasthan. Since all the petitions involve identical questions of fact and law, with the consent of the parties, they were heard together and hence, this common order.

(2). The petitioner purchased diesel from Indian Oil Corporation and Bharat Petroleum Corporation during the relevent assessment year and concessional tax and surcharge was paid on it @ 3% instead of 4@ as was leviable and in so doing, the Company has misused the ST Form No. 17. According to the Department, therefore, this payment of tax @ 3% instead of 4% amounts, in the circumstances, to evasion of tax and hence, notice to show cause was issued why the Company should not be penalised for such misuse and evasion.

(3). These notices are challenged by these petitions principally on the ground that (i) the Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti- evasion, has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices; (ii) the entire notices and the action purported to be taken in pursuance thereto is without jurisdiction; (iii) even if the notices are validly issued, there is no evasion of any tax. Use of ST Form No. 17 was proper and hence, there is no cause of action for issuance of the notices itself. Consequently, it is void ab initio; (iv) the interpretation sought to be put on the several notifications by the State and the Commercial Taxes Officer is incorrect. If properly read, even under the said notification, the use of ST Form No. 17 by the petitioner was only on concessional rate of tax at 3% was proper; (v) alternatively it is submitted that the notification itself is liable to be quashed as ultravires the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ``the Act).

(4). In view of the above contentions raised in the petitions, notices to show caused why the petitions should not be admitted were issued by this Court and in response to the notices, a detailed reply has been filed by the Department. By the reply, certain substantial preliminary objections have been raised to the maintainability of the petitions. The preliminary objections raised by the respondents stated briefly are as under:-

(a) that no petition directly against show cause notice is maintainable;

(b) that the petition is filed on 6.3.2000 when the notices were issued on 13.12.99 and after receipt of reply from the petitioners, the Assessing Authority decided the notices on 25.2.2000 after hearing the assessee and an order was passed in the presence of the authorised representative of the Company Mr. Sunil Surana and Mr. Heera Chand Jain. Consequently, to the knowledge of the petitioner, a valid order was made by the competent authority and, therefore, the show cause notices did not survive and culminated into an order, which ought to have been challenged;

(c) that sections 84, 85 and 86 of the Act provide remedy of appeal and revision under the statute itself to any aggrieved person. In effect, effective, efficacious alternative remedy exist and, therefore, these petitions are not liable to be entertained.

(5). Apart from these five petitions pending, I have come across in the last fortnight or so several such petitions indicating that there is a growing tendency particularly in tax matters to approach the High Court as a matter of course even against the show cause notices. The Rajasthan High Court has in so far as Industrial Law is concerned taken a view in the five Judges Bench unanimously that availability of alternative remedy is a bar to maintainability of a writ petition directly. However, inspite of such authoritative pronouncement of this Court, petitions were filed directly before this Court in regard to Service Matters as defined in the Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate T

Click Here to Read the rest of this document