Single-point sales tax levy on importers and prepayment for tax appeal under U.P. sales tax law upheld.

Section 3-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 permits a single-point levy on specified goods sold through successive dealers, and an importer was treated as part of that chain as the first dealer in the State; the single-point notification was therefore upheld. The proviso to section 9(1) requires an appeal against assessment to be supported by proof of payment of tax admitted to be due before the assessing authority, and a later denial in the memorandum of appeal does not avoid that requirement; on the facts, the appeal was held not maintainable because the admitted tax had not been fully paid.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an importer of goods could be treated as a "successive dealer" for the purpose of levy under section 3-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 and the notification issued thereunder was valid; (ii) Whether the assessee's appeal against assessment was maintainable in view of the proviso to section 9(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 requiring payment of the tax admitted to be due.

Issue (i): Whether an importer of goods could be treated as a "successive dealer" for the purpose of levy under section 3-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 and the notification issued thereunder was valid.

Analysis: Section 3 provided the general multi-point levy, while section 3-A enabled the State Government to declare that specified goods would be taxable only at a single point in the series of sales by successive dealers. The Court held that the chain of successive dealers begins with the first dealer in the State and extends through the series of sales up to the last dealer. An importer is a dealer and forms part of that chain. The single-point notification therefore operated validly even on the importer as the first dealer in the series.

Conclusion: The notification under section 3-A was valid and the contention that an importer could not be treated as a successive dealer was rejected, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee's appeal against assessment was maintainable in view of the proviso to section 9(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 requiring payment of the tax admitted to be due.

Analysis: The proviso to section 9(1) barred an appeal against assessment unless it was accompanied by satisfactory proof of payment of the amount of tax admitted to be due or such instalments thereof as had become payable. The Court held that the relevant admission was the admission made before the assessing authority and not a later denial in the memorandum of appeal. Otherwise the proviso would be rendered ineffective. On the facts, the assessee had admitted its liability before the assessing authority and had not paid the admitted tax in full, so the appeal could not be entertained.

Conclusion: The appeal was not maintainable under the proviso to section 9(1), against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessee failed on both the substantive levy challenge and the preliminary objection to the appeal, so the assessment and the dismissal of the appeal were upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: For section 9(1), the tax "admitted" means the tax admitted to be due before the assessing authority, and an importer is included within the series of "successive dealers" for a valid single-point levy under section 3-A.

---