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

1971 Supreme(Online)(All) 13

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
D. S. Mathur, J
Indian Ceramic House Agra v. Sales Tax Officer II Sector Agr


Table of Content
1. interpretation of rule 41 sub-rules (Para 1 , 2)
2. distinction between ratio decidendi and obiter dicta (Para 3 , 4 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. authority limits in provisional assessments (Para 5 , 10 , 12 , 29)
4. binding nature of judicial pronouncements (Para 13 , 15)
5. dealer's entitlement regarding tax deposits (Para 16 , 30)

1. D. S. Mathur, J. : - In these Writ Petitions the following question has been referred to us for decision in view of the conflict in two decisions of this Court, namely, M/s. Adarsh Bhandar v. Sales Tax Officer, Aligarh , AIR 1957 All 475 (FB) and Steel Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1969 All LJ 399.
"Whether in view of the various sub-rules of R.41, U. P. Sales Tax Rules, a dealer is entitled to deposit the tax admitted by him to be due and whether the assessing authority is entitled to make an enquiry whether the position assumed by the dealer as to his liability was justified in law, while making the provisional assessment?"
AIR 1957 All 475 (FB) (Supra) is a Full Bench decision, wherein Mootham, C. J. observed as below : -
"Under sub-rule (3) of R.41 the Sales Tax Officer is empowered to make an assessment to the best of his ju




























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top