Composition scheme election binds dealer: agreed lump sum tax liability cannot be avoided by claiming no turnover.

A dealer who elected a lump sum composition arrangement under section 7-D of the U.P. Sales Tax Act was bound by that election and could not later resile from it by claiming nil or reduced turnover. The liability under the composition scheme arose from the agreed lump sum, not from actual business turnover, so the dealer could not avoid the assessed tax on the basis of no turnover. The further plea that acceptance of the offer was absent or delayed involved disputed facts and the existence of an enforceable contract, which was not suitable for writ determination. Relief was refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether a dealer who had opted to pay tax in lump sum under the composition scheme could later resile from that option and resist recovery on the ground that he had no turnover, and whether the alleged absence or delay of acceptance of the offer gave any relief in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: Section 7-D of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 enabled a dealer to agree to pay a lump sum in lieu of tax, and the liability under such an arrangement was not linked to the dealer's actual turnover. Once the dealer had elected the composition route and the agreement governed the relationship, he could not later insist on payment based on nil or reduced turnover. The further contention regarding want of timely acceptance raised disputed facts and the existence of an enforceable contract, which was not appropriate for determination in writ proceedings.

Conclusion: The dealer could not withdraw from the lump sum composition arrangement or avoid the agreed tax liability on the basis of no turnover, and the writ relief was refused.

Ratio Decidendi: A dealer who elects to pay tax under a lump sum composition scheme is bound by that election and cannot later resile from it by invoking actual turnover or lack of business activity.

---