Supreme Court Of India
B.P.SINHA, C.J.I., S.J.IMAM,A.K.SARKAR,K.C.DAS GUPTA, J.C.SHAH, JJ.
Tata Iron and Steel Bombay - Appellant
Versus
S.R.Sarkar - Respondent
Petition No. 199 of 1959
Decided On : 08/29/1960
Judgement
SHAH, J. (for himself, Sinha C.J.I. and Imam, J.) : By this petition for writs of certiorari and mandamus, the Tata Iron and Steel Co., Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the company, challenges the authority of the Commercial Tax Officer, Lyons Range, Calcutta to demand payment of Rs. 41,14,718-12 nP. to the West Bengal Government as tax leviable under the Central Sales Tax Act No. 74 of 1956 in respect of certain sales of steel goods.
2. The company has its registered office in Bombay, its Head Sales office in Calcutta in the State of West Bengal and its factories in Jamshedpur in the State of Bihar. The company is registered as a " dealer under the Bihar Sales Tax Act, and is also registered as a " dealer in the State of West Bengal under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. For the period of assessment July 1, 1957 to March 31, 1958, the company submitted its return of taxable sales to the Commercial Tax Officer, Lyons Range, Calcutta disclosing a gross taxable turnover of Rs. 9,561-71 nP. in respect of sales liable to Central Sales tax in the State of West Bengal. By his memorandum dated August 12, 1959, the Commercial Tax Officer directed the company to submit a statement of sales from Jamshedpur for the period under assessment, " documents relating to which were transferred in West Bengal or of any other sales that may have taken place in West Bengal under S. 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The company, by its letter dated September 30, 1959, informed the Tax Officer that the requisition for production of statement of sales made from Jamshedpur in the course of inter-State trade or commerce was without jurisdiction. The company contended that " all the sales from Jamshedpur were of the type mentioned in S. 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act and at the same time, some of them also fell within the category mentioned in S. 3(b) of the Act, that even if the sales were " of the type mentioned in S. 3(b) of the Act, the appropriate State of the place where the sales take place or are effected alone had jurisdiction to assess such sales to Central Sales tax, and that in respect of inter-State sales from Jamshedpur, the si us of the sale was always the State of Bihar as the goods were in Bihar either at the time of the contract of sale or at the time of appropriation to the contract. By his order dated October 21, 1959, the Commercial Tax Officer made a " best judgment assessment on a gross turnover of Rs. 9,00,09,561-71nP. of inter-State sales and called upon the company to pay Rs. 41,14,718-12 nP. as tax under the Central Sales Tax Act.
3. The company had, on December 15, 1953, filed with the Sales Tax Officer, Jamshedpur a return of inter-State sales made from Jamshedpur for the period July 1, 1957 to March 31, 1958 and a return for the same period for the sales made from Dhanbad with the Sales tax Officer, Dhanbad. In these returns, the company included all sales in which movement of the goods had taken place from the State of Bihar to destinations outside that State The total turnover in respect of such inter-State sales as shown in the return exceeded Rs. 26 crores and the company paid as required by the Bihar Sales Tax Act Rs. 71 lakhs odd as advance tax under the Central Sales tax Act, 1956.
4. By this petition the company impugns the validity of the order of the Commercial Tax Officer and claims a writ of certiorari quashing and setting aside the assessment order dated October 21, 1959, and a writ of mandamus directing the Commercial Tax Officer to refrain from taking steps in enforcement or implementation of the order.
5. Counsel for the respondents contends that the petition under Act. 32 of the Constitution is not maintainable because no fundamental right of the company is infringed by the order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer and the remedy of the company if it feels aggrieved by the order, is to seek relief by resorting to the machinery provided by the West Bengal Sales Tax Act. Counsel relies in suppo
Relied on : Kailash Nath and another v. State of U. P. and others
Referred : Ramjilal v. The Income-tax Officer, Mohindar Garh
Laxmanappa Hanumantappa Jamkhandi v. Union of India and another
Distinguished : State of Travabcire Cochain and others v. Bombay Company Ltd., Alleppey
State of Travancore-Cochin and others v. Shanmugha Vilas Cashewnut Factory Quilon
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.