Unauthorized sales tax notifications on cotton yarn failed, but writ relief was refused because an appellate remedy was available.
Where a special sales tax provision itself fixed the taxable point for cotton yarn and conferred no power to notify the rate, notifications purporting to fix tax at two naye paise per rupee were unauthorised and ineffective under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, and could not be supported by the general levy or by importing the rate-setting mechanism from another provision in conflict with the Central Sales Tax Act ceiling. Despite that illegality, certiorari was refused because an adequate appellate remedy was available, the petitioners had not pursued it, and the Court declined to exercise writ discretion in light of delay and the absence of manifest jurisdictional error.
Issues: (i) Whether the notifications fixing tax on cotton yarn at two naye paise per rupee were authorised under the U.P. Sales Tax Act and consistent with the restrictions under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. (ii) Whether the petitioners were entitled to certiorari in view of the availability of an alternative appellate remedy and the delay in approaching the Court.
Issue (i): Whether the notifications fixing tax on cotton yarn at two naye paise per rupee were authorised under the U.P. Sales Tax Act and consistent with the restrictions under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
Analysis: The statutory scheme distinguished between the general levy under section 3 and the exceptional single-point levy under sections 3-A and 3-AA. Section 3-A empowered the State Government, by notification, to select a single point of sale and then fix a rate subject to the statutory ceiling. Section 3-AA, however, itself fixed the single point for cotton yarn at sale by a dealer to the consumer and did not confer any power on the State Government to issue a notification fixing the rate. The notification could not be justified under section 3-A because the Legislature had already occupied the field for cotton yarn under section 3-AA. The Court further held that the rate in section 3 could not be applied to cotton yarn, and that section 3-A(2) could not be imported into section 3-AA, as that would conflict with the special statutory scheme and the ceiling imposed by section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
Conclusion: The notifications were unauthorised and ineffective, and no valid rate of tax had been fixed on cotton yarn.
Issue (ii): Whether the petitioners were entitled to certiorari in view of the availability of an alternative appellate remedy and the delay in approaching the Court.
Analysis: The petitioners had an available remedy by appeal but did not pursue it. Some petitions were also delayed because the petitioners first sought rectification before the Sales Tax Officers. The assessment orders were within jurisdiction and the rectification refusals did not disclose any manifest error. In tax matters, the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court is ordinarily not invoked to short-circuit the departmental appellate remedy, and the Court declined to exercise discretion in favour of interference.
Conclusion: Relief under certiorari was refused, and the petitions were not entertained.
Final Conclusion: Although the levy notifications were held unauthorised, the petitions failed in the exercise of writ discretion because the petitioners had an alternative remedy and were guilty of delay.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a special sales tax provision itself fixes the taxable point and does not confer power to notify the rate, a notification purporting to do so is unauthorised; nevertheless, writ relief may be declined when an adequate statutory appeal was available and was not pursued within reasonable time.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
