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

1957 Supreme(Cal) 193

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
P. B. Mukharji
KAPUR BROTHERS - Appellant
Versus
COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER - Respondent
Matter 228  Of  1956
Decided On : NOVEMBER 18, 1957

The statutory provision for appeal under the Bengal Finance Sales Tax Act, 1941, is valid and the assessment order was justified by the evidence on record.

Headnote:

SALES TAX - Appeal - Statutory provision for appeal - Validity - Bengal Finance Sales Tax Act (6 of 1941), Ss. 3, 4, 15, 20, 21, 21-A, 24, 26 - Bengal Sales Tax Rules, R. 74.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Bengal Finance Sales Tax Act, 1941, challenged the order of assessment of sales tax for the year 1361 B. S. on various grounds, including the validity of the statutory provision for appeal, the merits of the assessment, and the assessment of sales tax on the amount realized by a registered dealer from a transaction outside Bengal on account of inter-State sale.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the statutory provision for appeal and the rules for appeal and the division of work under the Act between the Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioner, and the Commercial Tax Officer with the Board of Revenue working as a final Court of appeal are intra vires the statute. The Court also held that the assessment order was justified by the evidence on record and dismissed the petition.

Issues: 1. Whether the statutory provision for appeal under the Bengal Finance Sales Tax Act, 1941, is valid? 2. Whether the assessment order was justified by the evidence on record?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the statutory provision for appeal and the rules for appeal and the division of work under the Act between the Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioner, and the Commercial Tax Officer with the Board of Revenue working as a final Court of appeal are intra vires the statute. The Court reasoned that the Commissioner can delegate some of his powers for the purposes of this Act to the Commercial Tax Officers and Assistant Commissioner and that delegation does not make an appeal to Assistant Commissioner or Commissioner either ultra vires or beyond the statute. 2. The Court held that the assessment order was justified by the evidence on record. The Court reasoned that the Taxing Officer had given cogent and satisfactory reasons for rejecting the declarations on the basis of which the petitioner claimed exemptions.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition and discharged the rule.

P. B. MUKHARJI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application by Messrs. Kapur Brothers, a partnership firm, with a prayer for a writ of, or in the nature of certiorari to quash the order of assessment of sales tax for the year 1361 B. S. The rule was issued as early as the 18th December 1956, with provisions for interim stay of the order for realisation of the tax upon the applicant furnishing security. No "security, however, was furnished. The application is made under Article 226 of the Constitution.

( 2 ) THE order of assessment is dated the 26th October 1956. The notice of demand under Section 11 (3) of the Bengal Finance Sales Tax Act was given on the 3rd November 1956. At this stage the applicant made a petition dated the 29th November 1956, for a certified copy of the order of assessment with a view to file an appeal under Section 20 of the Act. It is now said that the statutory provision for appeal which the applicant wanted to avail is both illegal and ultra vires. Between the demand on the 3rd November 1956, and till the petition of the 29th November 1956, asking to be excused from paying or depositing the sum of Rs. 29,458-11-6 as the additional tax, no step was taken by the applicant within any reasonable time either by answering the demand of the 3rd November 1956, or by coming to this Court. The Commercial Tax Officer informed the applicant that realisation could not be stayed unless directed by the Assistant Commissioner under E. 80-B of the Act. Six days thereafter, the applicant moved this Court on the 18th December 1956, and obtained the rule. The rule gave an interim stay upon the applicant furnishing security, but the applicant did not furnish security and, therefore, did not avail of the interim order staying the realisation of tax granted by the rule. In the meantime the time to file an appeal under Section 20 of the Act expired on the 3rd January 1957, while the Rule was pending.

( 3 ) THE order of assessment is challenged in para. 20 of the petition. The grounds are stated in its sub-paras, (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i) and (j ).

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel's contention on behalf of the applicant is three-fold. He says, first, that there is no statutory authority for an appeal being heard by the Assistant Commissioner. His second point is that on the merits the assessing authority made a mistake in not allowing the exemptions claimed by him. His third point is that the assessment of sales tax on the amount realised by a registered dealer from a transaction outside Bengal on account of inter-State sale was illegal. I shall deal with these objections seriatim.

( 5 ) THE first objection is covered by grounds (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) of para. 20 of the petition. In substance, the point is that in view of Section 3 of the Act, Commercial Tax Officers and Assistant Commissioners are persons appointed only to assist the Commissioner in carrying out the purposes of the Act. Section 15 of the Act is said to permit Commercial Tax Officers and Assistant Commissioners to exercise only such powers as could be delegated to them by the Commissioner, so that the acts of the delegates should be deemed to be the acts of the Commissioner for the purposes of the Act. It is then contended that reading Sections 3, 4 and 15 of the Act, the order of assessment made by the Commercial Tax Officer should be deemed to be an order of assessment by the Commissioner himself. On that assumption it is then argued that an appeal against an order deemed to have been passed by the Commissioner himself cannot be preferred to the Commissioner or to any officer subordinate to the Commissioner. Finally it is said that the provision of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules for appeal is against the spirit of the Act and as such it is ultra vires. It is not said that such Rule is against the letter of the Act.

( 6 ) I am satisfied that this objection is without merit. Section 3 of the Bengal Finance Sales Tax Act defines the 'taxing authorities' w










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