LexRAMSARAN DAS AND BROS. versus COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, CALCUTTA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
276 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
RAMSARAN DAS AND BROS.
v.
COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, CALCUTTA
AND OTHERS
(B. P. Srmu., c. J., J. L. K.u>UR, !If. HIDAYATULLAH,
J.C. SRAH and J. R. MuoHOLKAR, JJ.)
Supreme Courl-Practia-Appeal by special leave from
or.Ur of a.ausmmt-Maintainability-Statut-Ory remedies t-0
be uhaUBtt4ftrat-Conalilution of India, Art. 136.
In respect of its business as a middleman relating main.
ly to sales of coal and coke in the course of inter-State trade,
'
the appellant finn was assessed to Central sales tax under
s. 8(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, by the Commer-
cial Tax Officer. The appellant without availing itself of
~
the remedies under the Act, applied for and obtained special
leave to appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution of India
direct! y against the order of assessment. When the appeal
was taken up for hearing, the question was raised as to
whether it should be enterained, when even the facts had
not been finally determined by the final fact-finding authority
under the Act, nor had the jurisdiction of the High Court
been invoked to exercise its powers under the Act.
H.Id, that an assessee is not entitled ordinarily to come
up to the Supreme Court directly against the judgment of
the A5'essing Authority and invoke the Court's jurisdiction
under Art. 136 of the Constitution without fir.t exhausting
the remedies provided by the taxing statutes.
Ma/ladayal
Prtmchandra• v.
Commucw l Tax Officer,
Calcutta, (1959] S. c,. R. 551 and Tht Stall of Bombay v.
M/s. RatilalVtdilal, (1961] 2 S. C.R. 367, explamed.
Chandi Prasad Clwkhani v. The State of Billar, [ 1962]
2 S. C. R. 276 and Kanhaifl<l[al Lohia v. Commiaaiontr of
Inoome-tax, Wut Bengal, [1962]2 S. C.R. 839, followed.
Held, ruthcr, that in the present case, in which th~re
were no special circumstances and in which the facts had
not yet been finally determined, the appeal must be consider-
ed to be incompetent.
CIVIL APPELLATE Jun1SDICTIO!'I: Civil Appeal
No, 592 of 1960.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment
and order dated June 17, 195!J, of the Commercial
Tax Officer, Calcutta, in caso No. 54{c) of
1959-60.
,-
<1) S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
277
N. 0. Okatterjee and S. 0. Mazumrlar, for the
appellants.
B. Sen and P. K. Bose, for respondents Nos. 1
and 2.
K. N. Rajagopal Sastri and T. M. Sen, for
respondent No. 3.
1961. October 31. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
SrNHA, C. J.-This is a direct appeal by
special leave granted by this Court on September
7, 1959, against the order, dated June 17, 1959,
passed by the first respondent-the Commercial
Tax Officer-assessing the appellant to central sales
tax amounting to Rs. 42,647 odd, for the period
July 30, 1957 to March 31, 1958, under the Central
Sales Tax Act (LXXIV of 1956)-which here·
inafter will be referred to as the Act. The second
respondent is the State of West Bengal, and the
third respondent is the Union of India.
In view of the order we propose to make in
this case, it is not necessary to state in any detail
the faots and circumstances leading up to this
appeal. The 11.ppellant is a partnership firm, under
the Indian Partnership Act, with its principal place
of business at 18, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta,
within the jurisdiction of the first respondent. The
appellant alleges that he carries on business of two
kinds, namely, (1) of a dealer in coal and coke,
and (2) of a middleman bringing about sales of
coal and ooke between colliery owners and consu·
mers. In respect of its business as a dealer, the
appellant is a registered dealer under the Bengal
Finance (Sales Tax) Act (Bengal Act VI of 1941).
lts second business as a middleman relates mainly
to sales of coal and coke in the course of inter~
State trade or commerce, and-the tax in question
relates to this second branch of its business. The
Act came into operation in the State of West
Bengal
on July 1, 1957, when the appellant
Bamsl!fan Das
v.
<Amnurcfal Tax
0 jfu:er CalcuJta
Sinh• C. J.
IHI
~INJ
v.
c..-sn.ir ...
0 fKD 1 WJ~~(J
Bi""" C. J.
I
278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
11
applied for and obta.ined;a certificate of registration
under tho Act on July 30. l 57. I1 l\fay 1958, the
apriella.nt made its return under the Act in respect
or the period aforesaid, showing the turnover as
nil. But in spito of its showing cause against the
proposed assosRment, the first respondent determin-
ed Rs.9Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.