JUDGMENT
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.
1. In effect, in this writ petition, what is claimed is that the petitioner is entitled to compel the opposite parties to give effect to the promises held out to the petitioner under Industrial Policy Resolution – 1992. (IPR-92 for short). The petitioner had earlier approached this Court in OJC No. 3748 of 2000 in essence claiming that it is entitled to exemption from sales tax in the light of IPR-92. By order dated 29.6.2000, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The question whether the petitioner is entitled to any exemption from sales tax would depend upon whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of any exemption under the notification issued under Seetion 6 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (in short, the ‘Act’). This position is clear from the decision of the Supreme-Court in Sales Tax Officer and Anr., v. Shree Durga Oil Mills and Anr., AIR 1998 SC 591. In the light of this, it is for the petitioner to make the claim before the assessing authority and in case the assessing authority does not uphold the claim pursue it before the appellate authority constituted under the Act. We do not think it proper or necessary to go into the merits of the claim raised by the petitioner in this writ petition.
2. We feel that in matters relating to assessment unaer the Orissa Sales Tax Act, it is not proper for this Court to jump into the fray just after an order of assessment is passed or even while proceedings for assessment are pending, and to deflect the proper course of assessment in terms of the Act, to be properly scrutinized by the appellate authorities constituted under the respective enactments. We make this observation in view of the tendency found to rush to this Court against notices, preceding assessments and against orders of assessment without pursuing the statutory remedies, against the orders of the first appellate authority without invoking the jurisdiction of the second appellate authority, and by filing writ petitions against second appellate orders under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, even though a clear statutory remedy by way of revision to this Court is provided. Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be a short-cut or cure-all for all ills when the Statutes themselves establish competent fora to efficaciously deal with the grievances of the assessees at different stages. After all, it is the statutory authority that should ultimately decide those questions or complete the assessment.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in this State the statutory authorities are not performing their duties properly and that compels the assessees to approach this Court for redressal of their grievances by trying to by-pass the statutory remedies. We cannot accept this wholesale condemnation. The Sales Tax . Tribunal in this State are manned by three Judicial Officers of the rank of District Judges and three Accounts Members. We do expect them to perform their statutory functions properly and judiciously. Moreover, what is called for, if at all, is to strengthen the institutions and not to by-pass them. One strengthens the statutory forum or the institution by compelling it to decide rightly and not by ignoring it or trying to by-pass it. Once a statutory final decision is rendered, this Court can judge whether the statutory for a are performing their functions properly, and come down upon them if they are seen to be guilty of laches or perfidy. As regards the assessing authorities and first appellate authorities, we have no doubt that any aberration can be corrected by the Sales Tax Tribunal or by this Court when the matter ultimately reaches this Court. We would like to remind the assessing authorities and the first appellate authorities that they are quasi judicial authorities and they are expected to perform their statutory functions in a proper and judicious manner and in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules.
4. On the whole, we are not satisfied that any interference by this Court is warranted at this stage.
5. Without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to pursue its claim before the appropriate statutory authorities in the proper manner, this writ petition is dismissed.
A. S. Naidu, J.
6. I agree.