LexSMT. UJJAM BAI versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1962
77S
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1963]
SMT. UJJAM BAI
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
(S. K. D.As, J. L. KAPUR, A. K. SARKAR. K. SUBB.A
R.Ao, M. HID.AY.ATULLAH, N. RAJ.AGOPALA
AYY.ANGAR and J. R.MUDHOLKAR, JJ.)
Fundamental Right, Enforcement of-Assessment by Sales
Tax Officer under a valid Act-If open to challenge o" the sole
ground of misconstructi·on of Act and Notificati"on-Oonstitution
of India,
Arts. 19(l)(g), 32-Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act,
1948(U.P. XV of 1948), s.4(1)(b).
The petitioner was a partnt:r in a firm that carried on
the business of manufacture and sale of hand~made biilis.
On
December 14, 1957, the State Government issued a notification
under s. 4(l)(b) of the U. P.
Sales Tax Act, 1948.
Section 4(1)(b) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, providos as
follows:-
"No tax shall be payable on-
( a)
The sale of water, milk, salt, newspapers and motor
spirit as defined ii) the U. P. State Motor Spirit (Taxation)
Act, 1939, and of any other goods which the State Government
may by notification in the Official Gazette, exempt.
(b) The sale of any goods by the All India Spinners'
Association of Gandhi Ao;hram, Mcerut, and their branch("s or
such other persons or class of persons as the State Government
may from time to time exempt on such conditions and on
payment of such fees, if any, not exceeding eight thousand
rupees annually as may be specified by notification in the
Official Gazette."
The notification dated December 14, 1957, issued under
s. 4(1jtb) was as follows:-
"In partial modification of notifications No. ST 905/X,
dated March 31, 1956 and ST 418/X 902(9) 52,
dated
January 31, 1957, and in exercise of the powers confer1ed by
clause (b) of sub-section !I) of section 4 of the U.P. Sales
Tax Act, 1948(U.P. Act No. XV of 1948), as amended up to
date, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh is pleased to order that
no tax shall he pavable under the aforesaid Act with effect
from December 14, 1957, by the dealers in respect of the
1 S. C. R. SYPRBME COURT RENRTS
779
following classes of goods provided that the Additional Central
Excise Duties leviable thereon from the closing of business on
December 13, 1957, have been paid on such goods and that
the dealers thereof furnish proof to the satisfaction of the
assessing authority that such duties have been paid.
I.
................. .
2.
. ........... .
3.
Cigars, cigarettes, biris and tobacco, that is to say
any form of tobacco, whether cured or uncured and whether
manufactured or not and includes the leaf, stalks and stems of
tobacco plant but does not include any part of a tobacco
plant while still attached to the earth."
By a subsequent notification is•.med on November 25,
1958, hand-made and machine-made bidia were unconditio·
nally exempted from payment of sales tax from July 1, 1958.
The Sales Tax Officer sent a notice to the firm for the
as~essment. of tax on sale of bidis during the assessment period
April l, 1958, to June 30, 1958. The firm claimed that the
notification dated December 1.4, 1957, had exempted bidia
from payment of sales tax and that, therefore, it was not
liable to pay sales tax on,xhe sale of bidia. This position was not
accepted by the Sales Tax Officer who passed the following
order on December 20, 1958,-
"The exemption envi~aged in this n'>tification,applies ·to
dealers in respect of sales of biris provided that the additional
Central Excise duties leviable thereon from the closing of
business on 13. 12. 1957 have been paid on such go0ds. The
assessees paid :no such excise duties. Sales af biris by the
assessees are therefore liable to sales tax".
The firm appealed under s. 9 of the Act to the Jqdge
(Appeals) Sales Tax, but that was dismissed on May 1, 1959.
The firm had however moved the High Court under Art. 226
~f tlie Constitution before that date. The High Court took
the view. that the firm had another remed}'\ under the Act and
that the Sales Tax Officer had not committed any appareht
firror in interpreting~ notification of December 14, 1957.
An appeal against the order of the High Oourt on a certificate
under Art. 133 (l)(a) was dismissed bv this Court for non·
pros~cution anp the firm filed an application for restoration
of the appeal: and condonation .of dday. During the pendency
of that,~ppe!ll the present 'PeLitivn was filed by th~ ,petitioner
under Art. 32 of the constitution for the enforcement of her
fundamental
ri~ht under
Arts.
19(1)(g)
andExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.