LexM/S. NAND LAL RAJ KISHAN versus COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, DELHI AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 283 Taxes (1 ), also they were held not to be vegetables '96' which specifically meant Sabzi, Tarkari and Sak. There- Ramavatar fore apart from the fact that the legislature by using Budhaiprasad Etc. two distinct and different items i.e. item 6 "vegeta- v. hies" and item No. 36 "betel leaves" has indicated its Assista"t Sales intention, decided cases also show that the word Tax Officer. Akola "vegetables" in taxing statutes is to be understood as Kapur J. in common parlance i.e. denoting class of vegetables which are grown in a kitchen garden or in a farm and are used for the table. In our view, betel leaves are not exempt from taxa- tion. These petitions therefore fail and are dismissed with costs. One hearing fee. Petitions dismissed. M/s. NAND LAL RAJ KISHAN v. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, DELHI AND ANOTHER (S. K. DAS, J. L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH, and T. L. VENKATARAMA AIYAR, JJ.) Sales Tax Act-Security demanded for payment of tax-V ali- dity of-Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) (Delhi Amendment) Act, r956 (Act r7 of z956), s. 8A. The validity of s. SA of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax (Delhi Amendment) Act, 1956, enabling the Commissioner of Sales Tax to demand security from dealers for payment of tax was challenged by the petitioners on the grounds that (i) the section gave undefined, unlimited and unrestricted power to the com1nissioner, (ii) no limit was fixed for the amount of security, and (iii) the section did not provide for any enquiry before the demand of security, nor did it provide for an opportunity of being heard being given to the person against whom the order was proposed to be passed. Held, that• s. SA did not give any unlimited or unrestricted power to the Commissioner of Sales Tax. The power of the Commissioner of Sales Tax was subject to the condition that it (l) [1958] 9 S.T.C. 194. March r4. 284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1962) I96I must appear to him to be necessary to demand security for the proper realisation of the tax. The power to levy a tax includes M /s. Nand Lal the power to impose reasonable safeguards for collecting it and Raj Kishan demanding security for the proper payment of tax is neither an v. arbitrary nor an unreasonable restriction. Com1nissioner of • . Sales Tax. Delhi Durga Prasad Khaitan v. Commercial Tax Officer, [r957] 8 S.T.C. 105, approved. &·Another Dwarka Prasad Laxmi Narain v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, [1954] S.C.R. 803, distinguished. Virendra v. The State of Punjab, [r958] S.C.R. 308 and Kishan Chand Arora v. The Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, [rg6r] 3 S.C.R. 135, referred to. The power of the Commissioner as regards the amount of security was not unlimited because the order of the Comm.s- sioner was subject to revision and scrutiny by the Chief C m- missioner. In the instant case an opportunity having been given to the petitioners for submitting their defence and an explanation having been actually submitted by the petitioners there was no violation of the principles of natural justice. A second oppor- tunity for oral hearing was not obligatory. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition No. 77 of 1958. Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. Bhavani Lal and P. 0. Agarwala, for the petitioners. 0. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, R. Gana- pathy Iyer and T. M. Sen, for the respondents. 1961. March 14. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by s. K. Das J. S. K. DAS, J.-This is a writ petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution. The petitioners, Messrs. Nand Lal Raj Kishan, carry on a business of commission agents at Delhi and are liable to pay sales tax in res- pect of their business under the provisions of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as in force in Delhi. They filed returns for four quarters of 1954- 55 and claimed exemption in respect of sales of cer- tain goods to the registered dealers under the prov i- sions of s. 5(2)(a)(ii) of the said Act. By his ordor • dated April 11, 1956, the Sales Tax O:fficrer disallowed ~ 11'. the exemption claimed by the petitioners mainly on 1 the ground that the alleged sales were made to "those I S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 2S5 registered dealers whose activities had gone under- ground." The Sales. Tax Officer issued a demand notice for a sum of Rs. l,ll,S90-11-0 on account of sales tax. The petitioners then carried an appeal to the Assi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.