SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1955 Supreme(Pat) 89

PATNA HIGH COURT
S.K.Das and Kanhaiya Singh JJ.
State Of Bihar
Versus
West Bokaro Ltd.
Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 9 of 1955 ;
Decided On : AUGUST 26, 1955

Under Sub-section (2) of Sec.25, Bihar Sales Tax Act, only the dealer or the Commissioner has the right to apply to the High Court against the refusal of the Board of Revenue to refer a question of law to the High Court.

Headnote:

BIHAR SALES TAX ACT, 1947 - SEC. 25(1), 25(2) - APPLICATION FOR REFERENCE TO HIGH COURT - MAINTAINABILITY - ONLY DEALER OR COMMISSIONER CAN APPLY - STATE OF BIHAR HAS NO RIGHT TO APPLY.

Fact of the Case:

The State of Bihar filed an application under Sub-section (2) of Sec.25, Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947, against the refusal of the Board of Revenue to refer a question of law to the High Court. The assessment of sales tax related to a period prior to the amendment of Sub-section (1) of Sec.25 in 1952, which gave the Commissioner the right to make an application under Sub-section (1).

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the State of Bihar had no right to make an application under Sub-section (2) of Sec.25, Bihar Sales Tax Act, as the expression "Commissioner" in the Act referred to a specific authority appointed under the Act, and not to the State of Bihar.

Issues: Whether the State of Bihar had the right to make an application under Sub-section (2) of Sec.25, Bihar Sales Tax Act, against the refusal of the Board of Revenue to refer a question of law to the High Court.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Sub-section (2) of Sec.25 in conjunction with Sub-section (1) of the same section, which gave the right to apply to the Board to refer a question of law to the High Court to the dealer or the Commissioner. Since the State of Bihar was neither a dealer nor the Commissioner, it had no right to make an application under Sub-section (2).

Final Decision: The court dismissed the application filed by the State of Bihar as incompetent and not maintainable.

Judgment

Das, J.

1. This is an application on behalf of the State of Bihar under Sub-section (2) of Sec.25, Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947 . Mr. Kanhaiyaji, appearing on behalf of the opposite party; has taken a preliminary objection to the maintainability and competency of the application. His preliminary objection is the following. Mr. Kanhaiyaji has submitted that Sub-section (1) or Sec.25,. Bihar Sales Tax Act was amended by the Bihar Finance Act, 1952.

Under the original sub-section, as it stood before the amendment, the only person who had the right to make an application under Sub-section (1) of Section 25 was the dealer. By the amendment, the Commissioner may, also, make an application under Sub-section (1) of Sec.25. In the case under our consideration, the assessment of sales tax related to a period prior to the amendment of Sub-section (1) of Sec.25. The argument of Mr. Kanhaiyaji, therefore, is that Sec.25, as it stood before the amendment of 1952, should apply in the present case and only the dealer has a right to make an application under Sub-section (1) of Sec.25. Therefore, under Sub-section (2) of Section 25, also, the, dealer alone can apply to the High Court against any refusal by the Board to refer any question of law to the High Court. This objection cannot, in my opinion, be sustained. In the present case, though the assessment related to a period earlier than the amendment made in 1952, the order which the Board of Revenue passed in revision was passed on 24-7-1953, that is, long after the amendment of Sub-section (1) of Sec.25, Bihar Sales Tax Act.

Therefore, the principle laid down by us in Chota Nagpur Banking Association" Ltd. V/s. Commr, of I. T. B. & O., AIR 1956 Pat 16 (A), will apply, and the Commissioner had the right to make an application to the Board for referring to the High. Court any question of law arising out of the order of the Board of Revenue passed under Sub-section (4) of Sec.24. This preliminary objection urged by Mr. Kanhaiyaji must, therefore, be overruled.

2. However, this is not the end of the matter. After arguments were concluded before us, I pointed out to learned counsel for the parties that, under Sub-section (1) of Sec.25, Bihar Sales Tax Act, the dealer or the Commissioner may, by an application in writing, require the Board to refer to the High Court any question of law arising out of the order of the Board passed under Sub-section (4) of Sec.24, affecting any liability of any dealer to pay tax under the Act.

Under Sub-section (1) of Sec.25 after the amendment of 1952, the right to apply under that subsection is given to the dealer or to the Commissioner. Sub-section (2) of Sec.25 then says, inter alia, that, if the Board refuses to make a reference, the applicant may, within forty five days of such refusal, apply to the High Court against such refusal.

Sub-section (2) of Sec.25 has to be read with Sub-section (1) of the said section. Therefore, if under Sub-section (1) the dealer or the Commissioner may make an application to the Board, under Sub-section (2), also, the dealer or the Commissioner may apply to the High Court against the refusal by the Board to refer any question of law to this Court. The section does not give the State of Bihar any right to make an application under Sub-s. (2) of Sec.25, Bihar Sales Tax Act.

3. The learned Government Advocate has pointed out to us that, all throughout the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax and the Board, the State of Bihar was made a party. That may be so. We have, however, to interpret Sub-section (2) of Sec.25 as it stands, and it is clear to us that, under that sub-section, the State of Bihar has no right to make an application to this Court against the refusal of the Board to refer any question of law to this Court.

The expression "Commissioner" has been defined in the Bihar Sales Tax Act and means any Commissioner of Sales Tax appointed under Sub-section (1) of Sec.3. It is obvious that the Commissio




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top