LexM/S. CHHOTABHAI JETHABHAI PATEL & CO. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
l S.O.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 991 M/S. CHHOTABHAIJETHABHAI PATEL & CO. v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (S. K. DAS, J. L. KAPUR, A. K. SARKAR, K. SUBBA RAO, M. llIDAYATULLAH, N. RAJAGOPALA.. AYYA.NGAR a~d J. R. MuDHOLKAR, JJ.) Sales·tax-:Notification by State Government exempting ltand-made biris--Validity of order of assessment-Uttar Praduh Sales Tax Act, 1948 (U. P. XV of 1948) s. 4(1)(b). The appellant firm was a registered dealer in biris under the Uttar Pradesh Sales -Tax Act, 1.943. The Sales Tax Officer assessed it to sales tax provisionally for lhc quarter from April I, 1958, to June 30, 1958. The appellant moved the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution but the peti- tion was dismissed. It appealed to this Court by special leave and filed a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution. Its case was that b¥ the notification issued under s. 4( 1 )(b) of the Act on December 14, 1957, hand-made biris were exempt· ed from sales tax and the order of' assessment made by the Sales Tax Officer was based on a misconstruction of the same. The notification provided "that no tax shall be payable under the aforesaid Act with effect from December 14, 1957, by dealers in respect of the following classes. of goods provided tha1. the Additional Central Excise Duties leviable thereon from the closing of business on December 13, 1957, have been paid on such goods" and the classes of goods included "cigars, cigare- ttes, biris tobacco in any form x x x x"-. Held, (Subha Rao, J., dissenting) that for the reasons given in the majority judgment of this Court in Ujjam Bai v . .State of U. P., the writ petition must fail. Ujjam Bai v. State of U. P., W. P. No. 79 of 1959, applied. The exemption '!:lnder the notification, properly con· strued, was conditional and applied only to goods on which additional Central Excise Duty was leviable and had been paid. Since no such duty was leviable on hand-made biris an<l none was paid, the condition precedent to exemption was not satisfied. The Sales Tax Oftlcer had therefore cor- rectly interpreted the notification and his order was correct. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition No. 195 of 1959. 1961 April 10. 196! Cleholobhai J ethabhai Patel & ro. v. Sl1r1 of Vttar Pradesh EapurJ. 992 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1963] 4 Petition Under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. WITH Civil Appeal No. 99 of 1961. Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and order dated May 14, 1959, of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ No. 1: 84 of 1959. G. G. Mathur, for the petitioners (in Petn. No. 195/59). 11. G. Setalvad, AUorney-General of India and G. G. Mathur for the app<"llants (in C. A. No. 99/61). S. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor General of India and 0.1'. Lal, for the respondents (in both the petition, and appeal). 1962, April 10. The following Judgments were delivered KAPUR, J.---Thisjudgment will dispose of two matters which arise out of the same proceedings under the U.P. Sales Tax Act (l) a petition under Art. 32 and (2) an appeal against the judgment and order of the High Couro of Allahabad passed in proceedings taken under Art. 226 of the Constitu- tion. One of the questions that arises in these two matters is the same which arose and has been decid- ed in W. P. No. 79 of 1959 in which the judgment has been delivered today. The facts giving rise to these two matters are these: The petitioner firm is a partnership litm carrying ou business of selling &iris and although ite principal office is at Nadiad (Bombay State) it has a branch office at Agra in U. P. where biris manu· factured uv it are brought and sold. The firm was registered as a dealer under s. 8 of the U.P. Salee '· l s.-C. B. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 993 Tak .Ai>t (Act Ui -0f 1948) hereinafter called the •Act'_ uuder which ·a not;ifice.tion giving exemption in regard to sales tax on cerlia.in articles was notified by a notiftcatiOn of Deoemb&r 14.1957, which has been set out at another place in this judgment. On February 271 1959, the Salee ·Tax Officer, Agra, passed a provision&I Order · of ·assessment of sales tax fbr the quarter fi"Odl April l, l968 to June 30, 1968. The tu sousesaed was Ra; .t>2,500. It is a~ tha.t no notice was given to ·the petitioner firm.- The notice or demand. was i:Jsued on the same date. An appeal was taken against this order of &88e88inent to the Judge .(Appeals) an
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.