U.P. SALES TAX ASSN. versus TAXATION BAR ASSOCIATION AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 228 · Decided: 01-09-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
U.P. SALES TAX ASSN. 
v. 
TAXATION BAR ASSOCIATION AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 1, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948-Section 9-Appellate Authmity-
Exclusive Jwisdiction to deal with assessment, levy and Collection of Sales 
Tax under the Act-High Cowt cannot prohibit such an authority from dis-
charging his statutmy duties-Withdrawal and transfer of functions from the 
authority to another jurisdiction by the High Cowt not justified. 
Constitution of India, 1950: A1ticle 226 writ petition prefen·ed by dis-
pleased members of the Bar-High Cowt allowed petition prohibited the 
appellate authority from discharging his functions and transfe17'ed the same 
D to another Jwisdiction-High Cowt cannot exercise this powe1~As se1ious 
repurcussions would ensue to the functioning of the sub-Ordinate judicia1y 
and statutmy ftmctionaries. 
Legal profession-Ethics-Right to go on st1ike-Boycott of Cowts by 
E lawyers-Deprecation of-Such act would deter judicial officers and 
authmities from discharging their duties without fear, favour or ill-Will. 
Under section 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948. The 
appellate authority, discharges quasi-judicial functions relating to assess-
ment, levy and collection of taxes. Such a statutory authority was con-
F 
fronted by lawyers belonging to the respondent Taxation Bar Association 
and accused of graft. Subsequently the respondent Association threatened 
to go on strike to pressurize removal and transfer of this authority. On 
receipt of a resolution to this effect passed by the respondent Association, 
the District Magistrate directed the authority to proceed on leave on the 
G condition that the lawyers withdraw the strike. The strike continued even 
after the authority resumed work under instructions from his superior 
officers. When the Government did not accede to the demands of the 
lawyers despite the strike, the Bar Association filed a writ petition in the 
High Court praying Inter-alia for mandamus restraining the authority 
from discharging his functions under section 9 of the Act of 1948 and for 
H the transfer of pending cases to another authority. 
228 
U.P. SALE TAX ASSN. v. TAXATION BAR ASSN. 
229 
The High Court allowed the petition. 
Aggrieved by this order the U.P: Sales Tax Service Association 
preferred an appeal to this Court. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD : 1.1. The 'High Court does not have the power to issue a writ 
or order of prohibition, injuncting a statutory authority from discharging 
its statutory functions or transfering these functions to another jurisdic· 
tion. Exercise of such power by the High Court generates a rippling effect 
on subordinate judiciary and another statutory functionaries. [242-D-E] 
S. Govinda Menon v. Union of India and Anr., AIR (1976) SC 1274 
and Dwarka Nath v. Income Tax Officer, Special Circle, D. Ward Kanpur and· 
Another, AIR (1966) SC 81, Distinguished. 
A 
B 
c 
1.2 If the rule of law is to have any meaning and content, the D 
authority of the court or statutory authority and the confidence of the 
public in them should not be allowed to be shaken, diluted or undermined. 
Any scurrilous, offensive, intimidatory or malicious attack on the judicial 
officer/authority beyond condonable limits, amounts to scandalising the 
Courtffribunal amenable to conviction for its contempt and liable to libel 
or defamation and damages personally or group libel. [234-F; 235-B] 
E 
Brahma Prakash Shamia and Ors. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 
(1954) SC 10; Tarini Mohan and Ors. v. Pleaders, AIR (1923) Calcutta 212 
and In the matter of a Pleader, AIR (1924) Rangoon 320, referred to. 
1.3. It has been a frequent spectacle in the recent past to witness F 
that advocates strike .work at the slightest provocation overlooking the 
harm caused to the judicial system in general and the litigant public in 
particular. [236-F] 
Federal Trade Commission v. Superior Cowt T1ial Lawyers Associa-· 
tion, et al, 493 US 411; 107 L Ed 2d 851 (1989); Cowt of its own motion v. G 
Mr. B.D. Kaushik & Ors., (1991) 4 Delhi Lawyer 316; Common cause v. 
Union of India, (1995) 1 SCALE 6; Shri KK Venugopal, The legal prof es-
sionals at the tum of the Centu1y" (1989) 1 NLSJ 121; Shri P.P. Rao "strike 
by professionals" Indian Advocate, Vol. XXIII, 1991 (Part-I); Shri H.N. 
Seerwa~ ''Lawyers strike and the Duty of the Supreme Court." Indian Advo- H 
230 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
cat
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.