Article 32 does not remedy mere misconstruction in tax assessments; exemption for handmade bidis depended on satisfaction of a payment condition.
A competent taxing authority's assessment under a valid statute is not vulnerable to Article 32 challenge merely because the Act or an exemption notification was misconstrued; where the authority acts within jurisdiction, the remedy lies in the statutory appellate or revisional process. On the sales-tax exemption issue, the notification governing handmade bidis operated only if the specified additional excise duty had been paid and proof furnished to the assessing authority, and the condition was not satisfied on the disputed turnover. The exemption therefore did not apply, and the assessment stood.
Issues: (i) whether an assessment made by a taxing authority under a valid taxing statute can be challenged under Article 32 of the Constitution merely on the ground that the authority misconstrued the statute or a notification issued under it and thereby infringed the right to carry on business; (ii) whether, on the true construction of the notification dated 14 December 1957 issued under Section 4(1)(b) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, sales of handmade bidis were exempt from sales tax during the relevant period.
Issue (i): whether an assessment made by a taxing authority under a valid taxing statute can be challenged under Article 32 of the Constitution merely on the ground that the authority misconstrued the statute or a notification issued under it and thereby infringed the right to carry on business.
Analysis: The controlling distinction drawn in the decision was between action taken under an ultra vires law, action taken without jurisdiction, or action taken in violation of mandatory procedure, on the one hand, and an order passed by a competent quasi-judicial authority within its jurisdiction under a valid law, on the other. A mere error in construing a provision or notification, if the authority had jurisdiction to decide the matter, was treated as an erroneous but legally effective decision, remediable by the statutory appellate or revisional process and not by Article 32 merely because the assessee asserted an infringement of fundamental rights.
Conclusion: An assessment order made by a competent quasi-judicial taxing authority under a valid statute is not open to challenge under Article 32 solely because it is alleged to rest on a misconstruction of the Act or the notification.
Issue (ii): whether, on the true construction of the notification dated 14 December 1957 issued under Section 4(1)(b) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, sales of handmade bidis were exempt from sales tax during the relevant period.
Analysis: The notification exempted the specified goods only on the condition that the additional Central excise duties leviable thereon from the close of business on 13 December 1957 had been paid and proof of payment was furnished to the satisfaction of the assessing authority. On the construction accepted by the majority, the exemption was linked to the payment of the additional excise duty contemplated by the notification, and the assessing authority was entitled to hold that the condition had not been fulfilled for the disputed turnover.
Conclusion: The notification did not entitle the assessee to exemption from sales tax on the disputed sales, and the assessment was upheld.
Final Conclusion: The petition challenging the sales tax assessment failed, and the order of assessment was sustained; the ancillary request for restoration of the dismissed appeal was also rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing authority acts within jurisdiction under a valid law, a mere misconstruction of the Act or of a notification governing exemption does not by itself create a breach of fundamental rights or furnish a ground for relief under Article 32.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
