Statutory tax enforcement cannot be defeated by an unproven executive assurance, and courts cannot compel amendment of taxing law.

An alleged excise authority assurance that sales tax would not be levied on Indian-made foreign liquor and beer did not bar enforcement of the statutory levy because the representation was not proved and, at most, showed only a possible future policy change. The tax remained enforceable as imposed under the governing law. A court also could not direct the Government to amend the sales tax schedule or refrain from enforcing a tax imposed by law, since levy and collection must rest on authority of law under Article 265 and any exemption or alteration must come from the competent law-making authority. The assessee's challenge therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an alleged representation by the excise authority that sales tax would not be levied on Indian-made foreign liquor and beer barred enforcement of the tax. (ii) Whether a court can direct the Government to amend the sales tax schedule or refrain from enforcing a tax imposed by law.

Issue (i): Whether an alleged representation by the excise authority that sales tax would not be levied on Indian-made foreign liquor and beer barred enforcement of the tax.

Analysis: The alleged assurance was not established on the record. The materials showed at most that the Government was considering abolition of the tax, not that it had decided to exempt the sales. The sales tax was imposed under the governing statute, and there was no legal basis for treating an uncertain administrative impression as a binding waiver of a statutory levy.

Conclusion: The alleged representation did not bar recovery or enforcement of sales tax, and this issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether a court can direct the Government to amend the sales tax schedule or refrain from enforcing a tax imposed by law.

Analysis: Levy of tax is an exercise of legislative power and can be altered only by the competent law-making authority in the manner provided by law. Article 265 permits levy and collection of tax only by authority of law. In the absence of a statutory exemption or power in the executive to withhold enforcement against a particular person, the court cannot compel amendment of the law or command the Government not to implement it.

Conclusion: No such direction could be issued, and this issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to enforcement of the sales tax failed because the tax was legally leviable and the Court could not grant relief that would in substance require alteration of the law.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory tax cannot be defeated by an alleged executive assurance, and a court cannot compel amendment of a taxing law or restrain its enforcement in the absence of statutory authority.

---