1. Sales tax assessment on handmade biris — Dispute over exemption under a government notification — Challenge to assessment order via petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. (Para 2 , 5 , 26 , 27 , 29 , 102 , 103 , 162 )
Back
Next 
1962 Supreme(SC) 145
Supreme Court Of India
UJJAM BAI
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh
Decided On : April 10, 1962
An order of assessment by a competent authority under an intra vires statute, acting within its jurisdiction, does not violate fundamental rights even if based on a misconstruction of law. Such errors must be corrected through statutory appeals or Article 226, as Article 32 is not an appellate remedy.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 12, 19(1)(g), 31, 32, 226, 265 - Taxing Statute - Section 4(1) - Order of assessment based on misconstruction of notification - Maintainability of petition under Article 32 - Whether an erroneous order passed by a quasi-judicial authority acting within its jurisdiction violates fundamental rights - If the statute is intra vires and the authority acts within its jurisdiction, a decision based on a misconstruction of the law or notification does not constitute a violation of fundamental rights - Such an order is a valid legal act, and the proper remedy is through statutory appeal or a petition under Article 226, not a petition under Article 32. (Paras 21, 35, 184)
(B) Article 32 - Scope and Nature - Article 32 is a remedial provision for the enforcement of fundamental rights and does not confer appellate or revisional jurisdiction on the Supreme Court - Unless a fundamental right is invaded, Article 32 is not applicable. (Para 21)
(C) Jurisdiction of Quasi-Judicial Authorities - A tribunal empowered to decide a matter does not lose its jurisdiction by arriving at a wrong conclusion in law or fact - An error of law or fact committed by a judicial or quasi-judicial body cannot be impeached otherwise than on appeal unless the erroneous determination relates to a matter on which the jurisdiction of that body depends. (Paras 15, 16)
Facts of the case:
A dealer in handmade biris was assessed for sales tax despite claiming exemption under a government notification. The assessing authority rejected the exemption on the ground that the condition regarding payment of additional excise duties was not satisfied. The dealer challenged the assessment order via a petition under Article 32, alleging violation of the fundamental right to carry on trade and business and illegal confiscation of property.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the taxing statute and the authority acting under it were intra vires. The assessing authority acted within its jurisdiction. Therefore, the order, even if based on a misconstruction of the notification, was a valid legal act and did not infringe any fundamental right.
Issues: Whether an order of assessment made by an authority under a taxing statute which is intra vires is open to challenge as repugnant to Article 19(1)(g) on the sole ground of misconstruction of a provision or notification, and whether such an order can be questioned under Article 32.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for a petition under Article 32 to be maintainable, there must be an invasion of a fundamental right. If a statute is valid and the authority acts within its jurisdiction, an erroneous decision does not constitute an "unauthorised" act or a violation of fundamental rights. The right to a correct determination of tax is a statutory right, not a fundamental right. Thus, a mere misconstruction by a competent authority does not attract the jurisdiction of Article 32.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
- taxation law
Table of Contents
2. Whether misconstruction of a valid taxing statute by a quasi-judicial authority violates fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) and is challengeable under Article 32. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 31 , 32 , 69 , 70 , 104 , 135 , 139 )
3. Distinction between ultra vires legislation and erroneous exercise of jurisdiction under intra vires law — Article 32 is not an appellate remedy for correcting errors of law. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 17 , 21 , 35 , 36 , 38 , 40 , 44 , 46 , 49 , 52 , 56 , 125 , 126 , 142 , 143 , 146 , 176 , 181 , 182 )
4. An order passed by a competent authority within its jurisdiction under an intra vires statute is a legal act, even if erroneous, and does not violate fundamental rights. (Para 21 , 35 , 36 , 184 )
5. Petition under Article 32 dismissed — Application for restoration of appeal dismissed. (Para 21 , 63 , 185 , 186 )
6. Can an assessment order under an intra vires taxing statute be challenged under Article 32 solely on the ground of misconstruction of the law?
No. If the statute is intra vires and the authority acts within its jurisdiction, an erroneous construction does not render the order a nullity or a violation of fundamental rights; the proper remedy is appeal. (Para 21 , 35 , 36 , 184 )
7. What is the distinction between a jurisdictional error and a mere error of law regarding fundamental rights?
A jurisdictional error, such as acting under an ultra vires statute or without authority, violates fundamental rights. A mere error of law or fact by an authority with jurisdiction is a valid legal act. (Para 15 , 36 , 125 , 126 , 184 )
8. Do quasi-judicial administrative tribunals fall within the definition of State under Article 12?
Yes, administrative tribunals are instrumentalities of the government exercising statutory functions and are comprehended within the expression other authorities under Article 12. (Para 92 , 118 , 152 )
9. Does the existence of an alternative statutory remedy bar a petition under Article 32 for enforcement of fundamental rights?
No, the right to move the Supreme Court under Article 32 is itself a guaranteed fundamental right and cannot be declined solely because alternative legal remedies exist. (Para 4 , 10 , 110 , 112 )
Judgment
S. K. DAS, J.
( 1 ) THE facts of the case have been stated in the judgment of my learned brother Kapur J. , and it is not necessary for me to restate them. I have reached the same conclusion as has been reached by my learned brother. But in view of the importance of the question raised, I, would like to state in my own words the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
( 2 ) THE two questions which have been referred to this larger bench are: 1. Is an order of assessment made by an authority, under a taxing statute which is Intra vires, open to challenge as repugnant to Art. 19 (1) (g), on the sole ground that it is based on a misconstruction of a provision of the Act or of a notification issued there under? 2. Can the validity of such an order be questioned in a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution ?
( 3 ) THESE two questions are inter-connected and substantially relate to one matter: is the validity of an order made with jurisdiction under an Act which is Intra vires and good law in all respects, or of a notification properly issued thereunder, liable to be questioned in a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution on the sole ground that the provisions of the Act, or the terms of the notification issued thereunder, have been misconstrued ?
( 4 ) IT is necessary, perhaps, to start with the very Article, namely, Art. 32, with reference to which the question has to be answered. `32. (1) The right to move the. Supreme court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed. (2) The Supreme court shall have power to issue directions or orders or write, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, qua warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part. Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme court by clauses (1) and (2), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme court under clause (2 ). The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution. ` The Article occurs in Part III of the Constitution headed fundamental Rights. It is one of a series of articles which fall under the sub-head, `right to Constitutional Remedies`. There can be no doubt that the right to move the Supreme court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of a right conferred by Part III is itself a guaranteed fundamental right. Indeed, cl. (1) of the Article says so in express terms. Clause (2) says that this court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas Corpus, mandamus, prohibition, qao warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III. Clause (4) makes it clear that the right guaranteed by the Article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by the Constitution. Article 359 of the Constitution. states that where a Proclamation of Emergency is in operation the President may by order declare that the right to move any court for the enforcement of such of the rights conferred by Part III as may be mentioned in the order and all proceedings pending in any court for the enforcement of the rights so mentioned shall remain suspended etc. It is clear, therefore, that so long as no order is made by the President to suspend the enforcement of the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution every person in India, citizen or otherwise, has the guaranteed right to move the Supreme court for enforcement of the rights conferred on him by Part III of the Constitution and the Supreme court has the power to issue necessary directions, orders or writs which may be appropriate for the enforcement of such rights. Indeed, this court has held in more than one decision that under the Constitution it is the priv
