LexSETH PREMCHAND SATRAMDAS versus THE STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
r\ S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS SETH PREMCHAND SATRAMDAS v. THE STATE OF BIHAR. [SAIYID FAZL ALI, MUKHERJEA and CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR JJ.J 799 Bihar Sales Tax Act (VI of 1944), s. 21 (3)-0rder of High 0011.rt Tefttsirig to require Board of Reven,~J,g to state case-Appeal to Federal Coivt-Maintainability-Letters Patent ',Patna, High Court 1, cl. 31-" Final Order "-Order in exercise of advisory jurisdiction of High Cmwt. No appe!tl lay to the Federal Cou!'t from an order of the P~t.:na High Court dismissing an application under s. 21 (3) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1941, to di!'ect the Bi-ard of Revenue, Bihar, to state a case and refer it to the High Court. Such an order i!;l not a" final order" within the meaning of cl. 31 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Oourt 1 inasmuch as 11.n order of the High Court under s. 21 (3) is advisory and standing by itself docs not bind or affect the rights of the parties though the ultiwate order passed by the Board of Revenue may be based on the opinion expressed by tbe High Court. Nor is such an order passed by the High Court in the exercise either of its appellate or original jurisdiction. within the meaning of the said clause. Sri Jriahanl Ha,.ihar Gir v. Commissioner of IncOme-tax, Bihar and Orissa (A.LR. 1941 Pat. 225) and Tata Iron and Steel Com- pany v. Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay (50 I.A. 21:J 1 applied. Feroze Shah Kaka Khel v. Incame·tax 001nmiss·ioner, Punjab (A.LR. 1931 Lah. 138) disapproved. APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 61 of 1950. Appeal from an order of the High Court of Patna dated 9th September, 1948, (Agarwala C.J. and Mere- dith J.) in M.J.C. N9. 5 of 1948. The appeal was originally filed as Federal Court Appeal No. 71 of 1948 on a certificate granted by the Patna High Co.urt under cl. 31 of the Letters Patent of that High Court that the case was a fit one for appeal to the Federal Court. H. P. Sinha (S. C. Sinha, with him) for the appellant. S. K. Mitra (S. L. Chibber, with him) for the respondent. 1950. November 30. The judgment of the Court was, d.~llv~r~d by F AZL Au J. 1950 Nov. 30. ( 800 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1950] 19'0 FAZL Au J .--This is an appeal from an order of the -- High Court of Judicature at Patna dated the 9th Seth Premchand September, 1948, declining to call upon the Board of Satramdas d · 3 f h v. Revenue to state a case un er section 21 ( ) o t e Th• Stars of Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1944 (Act VI of 1944), with Bihar. reference to an assessment made under that Act. Fast Ali J. The Bihar Sales Tax Act was passed in 1944, and section 4 of the Act provides that "every dealer whose gross turnover during the year immediately preceding· the commencement of the Act exceeded Rs. 5,000 shall be liable to pay tax under the Act on sales effected after the date so notified." It is not disputed that, having regard to the definitions of dealer, goods and sale under the Act, the appellant, who has been doing C0)1tract work on a fairly extensive scale for the Central Public vVorks Department and the East Indian Railway,. comes within the category of a dealer mentioned in section 4. Section 7 of the Act provides that "no dealer shall, while being liable under section 4 to pay tax under the Act, carry on business as a dealer un- less he has been registered under the Act and possesses a registration certificate". In pursuance of this pro- vision, the appellant filed an application for registra- tion on the 19th December, 1944, and a certificate of registration was issued to him on the 21st December, 1944. On the 8th October, 1945, the Sales Tax Officer issued a notice to the appellant asking him to produce his accounts on 10th November, 1945, and to show cause why in addition to the tax to be finally assessed on him a penalty not exceeding one and a half times the amount should not be imposed on him under sec- tion JO (5) of the Act. Section JO (5), under which the. notice purported to have been issued, runs thus:--,"·. "If upon information which has come into his pos- session, the Commissioner is satisfied that any dealer has been liable to pay tax under this Act in P2spect of any period and has nevertheless wilfully failed to apply for registration, the Commissioner sh;i.11, alt~ giving the dealer a reasonable opportunity o1 l:ieing '~ heard, assess, to the best of his judgment, the amount \.,. of tax, if any, due from the dealer in respect o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.