TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court dismisses challenge to Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 provisions. Government company lacks standing. Article 285 exemption not applicable.</h1> The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of clauses (c), (e), and (g) of section 2 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975. ... - Issues Involved:1. Constitutional validity of clauses (c), (e), and (g) of section 2 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975.2. Whether the petitioner is considered the Central Government under Article 285 of the Constitution.3. Jurisdiction of the court to pronounce on constitutional validity.4. Locus standi of the petitioner to challenge the legislation.5. Applicability of Article 285 to the petitioner-company.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Constitutional Validity of Clauses (c), (e), and (g) of Section 2 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975The petitioner sought a declaration that the provisions of clauses (c), (e), and (g) of section 2 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975, are ultra vires of Article 285 of the Constitution of India and prayed for striking down the said provisions as void. The impugned provisions define 'business,' 'dealer,' and 'goods' in a broad manner, which includes various entities and transactions.2. Whether the Petitioner is Considered the Central Government under Article 285 of the ConstitutionThe petitioner argued that its trade, assets, and properties are those of the Central Government by virtue of the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972. The court examined whether the petitioner-company, being a government company, can be considered the Central Government. It was concluded that the petitioner-company, incorporated under the Companies Act, has a distinct legal entity separate from the Central Government. The court cited precedents such as Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union v. State of Bihar and Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Income-tax Officer, which established that a government company does not equate to the Central Government.3. Jurisdiction of the Court to Pronounce on Constitutional ValidityThe court emphasized that the investigation of the validity of a statute should be limited to the extent necessary for the disposal of the issue before the court. It stated that a court will not decide the constitutional validity of any law at the instance of a party whose material interests are not prejudicially affected by the enforcement of the law. The court held that it has the jurisdiction to determine whether it has the jurisdiction to decide a particular case.4. Locus Standi of the Petitioner to Challenge the LegislationThe court determined that the petitioner, not being the Central Government, is not a person aggrieved by the impugned legislation. Therefore, the petitioner lacked the locus standi to invoke the jurisdiction of the court to pronounce upon the constitutional validity of the provisions. The court held that the constitutional validity of a provision can only be determined if it is necessary for the determination of the questions raised in a particular case.5. Applicability of Article 285 to the Petitioner-CompanyArticle 285 of the Constitution exempts the property of the Union from State taxes. The court concluded that since the petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and has a distinct personality from the Central Government, the exemption under Article 285 is not available to it. The court dismissed the petition on the grounds that the petitioner-company is not the Union within the scope of Article 285 of the Constitution.Additional Arguments and ConclusionThe court also noted other arguments presented by the counsel, such as the nature of the tax imposed by the sales tax laws and the interpretation of Article 285. However, the court did not express any opinion on these submissions due to its finding that the petitioner-company is not the Union. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the challenge to the impugned notices and proceedings is premature as no orders have been passed. The petitioner was advised to pursue remedies before the sales tax authorities. The petition was dismissed without any order as to costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
