TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1965 (11) TMI 124
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gh Court. Rayalaseema Constructions now defunct was a firm of engineers with its head office at Madras. For the year 1951-52, the firm was assessed under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on a gross turnover of Rs. 2,23,174-10-0 as on "works contracts". The order of assessment was made on March 25, 1953, and it was then determined that a sum of Rs. 2,440-15-7 was payable by the firm. Deducting the payments made by the firm, a balance of Rs. 775-15-7 remained due in respect of this assessment. For the year 1952-53, the gross turnover of the firm was computed to be Rs. 2,54,666-13-9 and the assessment was made in a sum of Rs. 2,785-6-9. Deducting the various payments made by the firm, a sum of Rs. 1,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Bench of the High Court held that in relation to a tax where an assessing officer acted outside the boundaries of his jurisdiction, his acts would, to that extent, be null and void, that no one would have any power to call upon a citizen to make payment of a tax so imposed, and if any authority sought to collect a tax so im- posed, the citizen could call in aid Article 265 and seek the assistance of the Court. As a result of the conclusions reached by them, the learned Judges issued a writ of mandamus directing the appellant to forbear from collecting the amounts. In support of the appeals, it is contended by Mr. Ranganadham Chetty that the question whether the transactions with respect to which the respondent was assessed to sales tax we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ence to impose a tax on "indivisible building contracts". There is therefore no doubt that the relevant provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act in so far as they deal with "indivisible building contracts" are ultra vires the powers of the State Legislature and there fore void. It follows that in the instant case, the Sales Tax Authorities have acted outside the Act in making an assessment on the basis of the relevant part of the charging section which was declared to be ultra vires by this Court. In K.S. Venkataraman & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. The State of Madras', this Court by a majority held that by reason of the fact that the relevant part of the charging section was held to be ultra vires, section 18-A of the Act was not a bar for the ....