A party who has exercised its option to take recourse to the remedies available under a statute and has acceded to the jurisdiction of the authorities under that statute is estopped from challenging the correctness of the validity of an assessment order on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

Swatanter Kumar, J.

1. This revision is directed against the order dated May 29, 1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon. Vide impugned order, the learned Judge dismissed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff-petitioner and affirmed the order dated November 27, 1995 passed by the learned Senior sub-Judge, Gurgaon.

2. Mr. Sibal, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, while relying upon the case of Ashok Leyland Limited v. Union of India [1997] 105 STC 152 (SC) ; (1997) 9 SCC 10, contended that the learned subordinate courts have fallen in error of jurisdiction in declining the injunction prayed for, to the plaintiff. The contention is that the provisions of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 have been misconstrued and the facts pleaded misappreciated, resulting in the passing of the impugned orders.

3. The principal contention on behalf of the petitioner is that they have different offices and sale distribution centres of the cars in all over India and the car sold by them in places other than Delhi could not form subject-matter of payment of sales tax in Delhi. This has resulted in double taxation and is violative of Article 286 of the Constitution of India.

4. In order to appreciate these contentions, reference to some undisputed facts would be necessary. The plaintiff is a company carrying the business of leasing and hire-purchase of motor vehicles and equipments, etc. It has various offices in major towns of India including the cities of Delhi, Gurgaon and Chandigarh. For the purpose of sales tax, the plaintiff has been registered as dealer in Delhi under the provisions of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 and is assessed in Ward No. 5. Certain dispute arose between the parties, i.e., the sales tax and Assessing Authorities and the plaintiff-company for imposition of tax in regard to the vehicles, which were sold by the different offices of the plaintiff-company outside Delhi for the years 1990-91 and 1991-92. The assessment order was passed by the Assessing Authority, Delhi, creating a demand and liability of sales tax to the extent of Rs. 2,93,56,367. Under the provisions of the Sales Tax Act, the plaintiff choose to file an appeal against the order of assessment. In the appeal, the plaintiff was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 33 lacs as condition precedent for entertaining the appeal. Aggrieved from the said order, the plaintiff-petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, who varied the condition precedent for hearing of the appeal to the extent that it directed the plaintiff to pay Rs. 23 lacs. This order was challenged in the Delhi High Court by way of the Civil Writ Petition No. 1947 of 1994, wherein the plaintiff was directed to pay Rs. 16 lacs, vide order dated 26th May, 1994, as condition precedent for hearing of the appeal. Ultimately, the writ petition stood dismissed in the same terms.

5. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff that the plaintiff was not in a position to comply with the condition precedent imposed by the various authorities under the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 for hearing the appeal and thus instituted the present suit challenging the very validity and enforcement of the assessment order passed by the sales tax authority creating a demand of Rs. 2,93,56,367.

6. It is a settled principle of law that relief of injunction is a discretionary relief in equity and good conscience. The court could exercise its judicial discretion in favour of a party, only if the said party has approached the court fairly in accordance with law and action does not lack bona fides on his part. In the present case, the order of assessment was passed by the sales tax authorities for the year 1991-1992. The plaintiff-comapny with its option elected to take recourse to the remedies available to it under the provisions of the Delhi Sales Tax Act. Having exercised that option, the plaintiff, in the facts of the case, in fact, would be estopp