1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 498 of 2003 Date of decision:19.8.2008 M/s Vee Arr Flour Mills ..Petitioner. Versus State of HP through Secretary, Excise & Taxation & others ..Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Pushpa Attri, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General Per R.B. Misra, J. (Oral) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 1. It appears the petitioner is a flour mill registered with Khadi Village Industrial Commission, Shimla (in short “KVIC”) and has claimed the tax exemption by virtue of having been financed by ‘KVIC’. However, the said exemption was not allowed by the Assessing Officer while making an assessment of the petitioner for the period 28.4.2002 to 28.5.2002 on the ground that the petitioner 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 has not found to have been fully financed by ‘KVIC’ and was falling under margin money scheme. 2. Being aggrieved against the above assessment order dated 30.5.2002, petitioner preferred an appeal under section 30 of the H.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1968 ( in short “Sales Tax Act”) and the said appeal No. 113/2002-03 was adjudicated upon and the Addl. Excise & Taxation Commissioner dismissed the appeal on 28.12.2002. Being aggrieved of such order, petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondents that when an alternative remedy of preferring appeal under section 30(2) of Sales Tax Act is available, whereby if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of Addl. Excise & Taxation Commissioner, he could have preferred an appeal before the Financial Commissioner. Without availing the remedy available under section 30(2) of Sales Tax Act, petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner has resorted the jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking remedy in reference to the above order dated 28.12.2002 without availing the alternative remedy available under the Sales Tax Act, therefore we are not invoking extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution as such without 3 expressing any thing on the merits, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner, if approaches before the appropriate authority for availing the remedy under section 30(2) of Sales Tax Act, the same shall not be thrown away on the ground of delay or latches and the same shall be adjudicated in accordance with the provisions of law being unaffected by observation in the present order. ( R. B. Misra ), J. ( Surjit Singh ), J. 19th August, 2008 (sl)