LexCENTRAL POTTERIES LTD versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
l961 March30. SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1963] CENTRAL POTTERIES LTD. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS (B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCIIOO, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR an<l 'l'. L. VENKATARAMA AIYAR, JJ.) Sales 1'ao;-Assessment-Liability to pay tax, if depends upon being registered as dealer-Want of jurisaiction and irregu- lar a.'l.r;um.ption of juriadiction-Distinction-0. P. and Berar Sales 1'ax Act, 1947 (G. P. & Berar 21 of 1947), s. 3, 4 (1), 8. IO, 11. The appellant was a company carrying on business in the manufacture of sale of potteries and Chinaware in Nagpur. The Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act came i .. to force on.June 1st 1947. On May 27, 1947, notifica· tions Nos. 597 and 599 were issued. Notification No. 597 fixed August 15, 1947 as the date by which the dealers liable to pay tax under the said Act were to get themselves registered and by notification No. 599 the District Excise Officer was appoint- ed as the Sales Tax Officer for receiving application for registration and for issuing certificates. The appellant com- pany presented an application to the said officer and the certificate was issued on July 21st 1947 but actually delivered to the appellant on September 13, 1947. Thereafter, the appcl· !ant had been duly submitting returns and paid taxes till June 30th 1951. The appellant instituted a suit in December 1951 contending that the Sales Tax Officer who issued the Registration Certificate to the appellant on July 21st, 1947, was not authorised to do so under the Act, and the recoveries of tax from him were illegal and void, The Trial Court held that the certificate of registration was deliv~red to the appellant on 13th September, 1947, i.e. after the Rules had been finally published on August 15, 1947, and the irregularity if any in the issue of the certificate had been cured and further held that the liability of the appellant to pay sale's tax was not affected by the invalidity of the registration under s. 8. On appeal the High Court held that . the question whether the 'registration of the appellant as dealer under s. 8 of the Act was valid or not did not call for a decision as even if it was invalid, that did not affect its liability 10 be assessed to sales tax, and dismissed the appeal. The appellant came up in appeal by certificate to the Supreme Court. I S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPOR'fS 167 The question was whether the appellant was not liable 1161 to pay tax under the prov1S1ons of the Central Central PoC11rie1 Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act 191-7 on the ground Ltd. alleged that it had not been valiJly registered as a dealer under v. s. 8 of the Act. St•t• of Alo/wr.,.,,. Held, that the High Cc)urt was con c:ct in its view that the appellant was liable to pay the tax under the Act irrespective of whether the registration under s. 8 was valid or not. The liability arose under s. 4 of the Ai::t which was the charging section and the liability was not conditional on the registration of the dealer under s. 8 of the Act. The position of the dealer who has obtained a certificate of registration which turns out to be invalid cannot on princi- ple be distinguished from that of one who has frtiled to obtain a certificate. 'I he provision of ss. 8 and 11 do not, to any extent, affect the substantive liability to be assessed to tax which is imposed by s. 4 of the Act. There is a fundamental distinction between want of juris· diction and irregular assumption of jurisdiction. Whereas the order passed by an <.uthority with respect to a matter over which it has no jurisdiction is a nullity and is open to colla- teral attack, an order passed by an authority which. has jurisdiction over the matter, but as assumed it otherwise than in the mode prescribed by law is not a nullity. It may be liable to be questioned in those very proceedings, but subject to that it is good and not open to collateral attack. There- fore even if the proceedin~s for assessment were taken against a non-registered dealer without tl:c issue of a notice under s. IO (I) that would be a mere irregularity in the assumption of jurisdiction and the ordered of a assessment passed in those proceedings cannot be held to be without jut isdiction and no suit will lie for impeaching them on the ground that s. 10 (I) had not been followed CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 205 of 1961. Appeal from the judgm
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.