LexNARINDER CHAND HEM RAJ & ORS. versus LT. GOVERNOR, ADMINISTRATOR, UNION TERRITORY, HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
940 NARINDER CHAND HEM RAJ & ORS. v. LT. GOVERNOR, ADMINISTRATOR, UNION TERRITORY, IDMACHAL PRADESH & ORS. October 5, 1971 (K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.J Sc/es Tax-Deputy Com1nissioner giving ilnpression to bidders at auc- tion for licence for sale of liquor that Indian made foreign liquor would be exe111pt fro1n sales-tax-Higher bids Riven as a resul~ of such in1pres- sion-Exenzption not actually given-Court cannot issue writ it> State Governnzent to nutke change in law and to grant exeniption-Executive cannof1 be f.'sked not to enforce a provision of law. Under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, no sales tax was pay- able on goods specified in the first column of Schedule B to the Act subject to certain conditions and exceptions. Up to August 31, 1966 Indian made fo'reign liquor was in Schedule B. But on that date the Government of Punjab in exercise of its powers conferred under proviso to s. 5 deleted Indian made foreign liquor from Schedule B and included the same in Schedule A which made it exigible to sales tax. Simla was part of Punjab till reorganisation of Punjab in 1966. Simla and two other districts of the former State of Punjab were added on to the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh under the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966. Under the provisions of that Act the laws in force, immediately before the appointed day namely October 1, 1966 in those districts were to con- tinue in operation till the appropriate legislature dr competent authority altered the same. Accordingly in Simla and other areas thus transferred to Himachal Pradesh Indian made foreign liquor was liable to sales tax. In the auction for sale of Indian made foteign liquor and beer held on March 31, 1967 the appellant, a firm of wine merchants, was the highest bidder for dealing in liquor under L-2 licence as provided in the Punjab Liquor Licence Rules as applicable to certain part• of the then Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh. When the State of Himachal Pradesh took steps against the firm for realising sales-tax on liquor and beer sold by it the appellant firm filed a writ petition in the High Court. It was alleged in the petition that the Deputy Commissioner, Simla, who was also Collector of Excise and Taxation, announced at the time of auction that no sales tax would be liable to be paid on the sale of Indian made foreign liquor and beer. Accordingly the appellant prayed that because of the equities of the case the court should issue a writ, direction or order restraining the respondents from enforcing the levy of sales tax on the sales of Indian made foreign liquor at Simla. In the firm's appeal to this Court against the judgment of the High Court, HELD : (i) The averments in the petition did not show that the Deputy Commissioner gave an assurance to the bidders that the Himachal Pradesh Government had decided to abolish sales tax on the sale of Indian made foreign liquo'r. If the statement in the writ petition was correct the Deputy Commissioner merely gave a wrong interpretation of law. On behalf of the respondent it had been denied that the Deputy Commissioner had made such a representation. According to them all that the Deputy Commissioner slated was that "the Government was con- side'ring to abolish the tax on the line of the Haryana Government". It further appeared from the correspondence between the State Government and the Central Government that the Government of Himachal Pradesh A B c D E F G H A B c D E H NAR!NDER CHAND v. LT. GOVERNOR, H.P. (Hegde, I.) 941 wanted to bring their sales tax law relating to the sale of Indian made foreign liquor in line with the law in force in Haryana State. Obviously, the Government of Himachal Pradesh was of the opinion that it could not alter the law without the. concurrence of the Central Government: That being so it was difficult to accept the contention of the appellant that the Deputy Commissioner had represented that the Himachal Pradesh Government had decided to remove sales-tax on the sale of Indian made foreign liqudr. The only thing which the Deputy Commissioner could have announced was that the Himachal Pradesh Government was con- sidering to abolish the tax in question. Such a representation cannot be considered as a condition of the auction assuming that such a condition could be imposed orally by the Deputy Commissioner .. [943 B-H] (ii) The power to impose tax is undoubtedly a l
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.