1975 (8) TMI 112 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court dismisses petition under Article 226 for form issuance to coal dealer, stresses Officer's discretion

The Court dismissed the petition under Article 226 concerning the issuance of form No. 31 to a coal dealer in Uttar Pradesh. It emphasized the Sales Tax ... - Issues:1. Interpretation of Rule 85(4) regarding the issuance of form No. 31 under the U.P. Sales Tax Rules.2. Discretion of Sales Tax Officer in determining the number of forms to be issued to a dealer.3. Assessment of genuineness of the dealer's demand for forms and accountability of previously issued forms.4. Availability of alternative remedy through appeal for challenging the Sales Tax Officer's decision.5. Court's jurisdiction in entertaining and deciding disputes related to the issuance of forms.Analysis:The judgment addressed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution concerning the issuance of form No. 31 to a coal dealer in Uttar Pradesh. The Sales Tax Officer had limited the dealer's request for 300 forms to only 10 forms, citing excessive demand and lack of proper accountability for previously issued forms. The Court emphasized that the number of forms to be issued is at the discretion of the Sales Tax Officer, based on the genuineness of the dealer's needs, as per Rule 85(4) of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules. The Court highlighted the importance of dealers accounting for all forms obtained earlier to prevent misuse, such as selling them for improper import of goods.Furthermore, the judgment clarified that if a dealer fails to account for previously issued forms, the Sales Tax Officer can refuse further issuance. The Court rejected the petitioner's plea for mandamus to compel the Sales Tax Officer to issue 300 forms, stating that the Officer's decision should be respected unless proven unreasonable. The petitioner was advised to seek recourse through the appellate authority if unsatisfied with the Officer's decision, providing an opportunity to demonstrate genuine need and proper form utilization.The Court emphasized that it is not within its jurisdiction to resolve such disputes and directed the petitioner to follow the proper legal course by approaching the appellate authority. The judgment concluded by dismissing the petition, noting that the petitioner could request more forms if genuinely needed and already utilized the existing forms. Additionally, the Court declined to entertain a challenge to subrule (4) of Rule 85 as it was not raised in the writ petition, maintaining the dismissal of the petition.