LAKSHMI RATTAN ENGINEERING WORKS LTD. versus ASSTT. COMMR. SALES TAX, KANPUR & ANR.

Citation: [1968] 1 S.C.R. 505 · Decided: 12-09-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

.8 
LAKSHMI RAlTAN ENGINEERING WORKS LTD. 
v. 
ASnT. COMMR. SALES TAX, KANPUR&: ANR. 
September 12, 1967 
IM. HIDAYATULLAH, V. BH.UG.WA A'ID c. A. VAIDI.ALINGAM, JJ.] 
UP. Salea-Taz Act (U.P. 15 of 1948) S. 9-Memorandum of 
appeal-Cltallan showing deposit of tax, if necessary-U.P. Sales-
taz Rule•, 1948. r. 66(2)--Constitution of India. Art. 136--:Special 
leai:e to appeal-Other remedies not e:rhausted-If can be g!llen. 
The. appellant-assessee filed a memorandum. of appeal to the 
Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax. stating therem that the amount 
of admitted tax had been paid and forfeited the statement by an 
·C 
affidavit. Before the hearing, he produced a certificate from the 
Sales-T.ax Officer that the tax had been paid. The Assistant Com-
missioner relying on the Allahabad High Court's decision in Swa•-
tilca · Tllnnef'll, Jaimau v. Commissioner of Sales-tax, U .P. rejected 
as defective the memorandum of appeal. holding that it was not 
accompanied by the challan showing the . •posit of admitted tax 
under s. 9 of the .Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948 and r. 66 of the 
U.P. Sales-tax Rules. Against this order the assessee directly filed 
D special leave to appeal to this Court without exhausting the remedies 
of revision and reference provided in the Act. This Court granted 
Special Leave and; 
Hnn: The appeal must be allowed. 
(i) By the \\~ord ··entertain" in the proviso to s. 9 is meant the 
E 
first occasion on which the Court take up the matter for considera-
tion. It may be at the admission stage or if by the rules of that 
Tribunal, the appeals are automatically admitted, it will be the time 
of hearing of the appeal. But on the first occasion when the court 
takes up the matter for consideration. satisfactory proof must be 
presented that the tax was paid within the period of limitation 
available for the appeal. Rule 66(2) lays down one uncontestable 
P mode of proof which the Court will always accept but it does not 
exclude the operation of the proviso when equally satisfactory 
proof 1s made available to the officer hearing the appeal and it is 
proved to his satisfaction that the payment of the tax has been duly 
.made and in time. [512E-F; 513E-G] 
In the present case. when the Assistant Commissioner took up 
the appeal for consideration. satisfactory proof was available in' the 
shape of a certificate. 
G 
Swastika Tanneru. of Jaimau v. Commissioner of Sales.tax. U.P. 
Lucknow, 0963) 14 S.T.C. 518. disapproved. 
Kundan Lal v. Jagannath Sharma. A.I.R. 1962 All. 547; Dhoom 
Chand Jain v. Chaman Lal Gupta and Anr. A.l.R. 1962 All. 42: /iaii 
Rahim Bux & Sons & Ors. v. Firm Samiullah & Sons, A.LR. 1963 All. 
320, approved. 
Iii) Thoul!h this Court would not ordinarily grant special leave 
B to appeal against an order when other remedies were available and 
had not been exhausted. there is no inflexible rule that this Court 
wi.11 never entertain such an appeal. It would have been futile in 
th1~ case for the assessee to have gone to the court of revision 
which w~ _bound by the decision in Swastika Tannery of Jaimau 
v. Comm1SS1oner of Sales-tax, U .P. and it would have been equally 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1968] 1 S.0.11. 
futile· to have gone to the High Court on a reference. The matter A. 
was more easily disposed of by giving special leave in this Court 
and. this was one of those extra-ordinary cases in which the ends 
of justice would be better served, by avoiding a circuity· of action 
&nd by dealing with this matter in this Court directly. [513H-li14C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1283 of 
1967. 
Appeal by special leave from the Order dated April 2 / 3. 8 
1967, of the Court of Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) I, Sales 
Tax, Kanpur Range, Kanpur in Appeal No. D.F. 78 of 1966. 
I. P. Goyal and Sobhag Mal lain, for the appellant. 
0. P. Rana, for the respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Hlciayatullall, J. This is an appeal by special leave against 
an order 2/3 April, 1967, of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) 
I. Sales Tax, Kanpur Range, Kanpur by which the Assistant 
Commissioner rejected as defective the memorandum of appeal 
filed by the present appellant against the assessment order passed D 
by the Sales Tax Officer (S-1) Kanpur. The defect. according to 
the Assistant Commissioner, was that the memorandum of appeal 
(which had been filed well within time) was not accompanied by 
the challan showing the deposit of admitted tax under s. 9 of 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.