TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1971 (10) TMI 87
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... who is also the Collector of Excise and Taxation, announced that no sales tax will be liable to be paid on the sale of the Indian-made foreign liquor and beer but despite this assurance the Government has levied and collected from the appellant-firm a sum of Rs. 26,798.26 and further it is taking steps against the firm for realising sales tax on the liquor and beer sold by it. Hence it filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court (Himachal Pradesh Bench at Simla) seeking various reliefs. Several contentions were taken in the writ petition but at the time of the hearing only one of the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition was pressed. Many of the contentions taken in the writ petition were given up. Hence it is not necessary for us to refer to the facts relating to the other reliefs prayed for in the writ petition. The appellant pleaded that in view of the representation made by the Deputy Commissioner, it was induced to increase its bid as a result of which the Government had substantially benefited. The case for the appellant is that because of the equities of the case, the court should issue a writ, direction or order restraining the respondents from enforcing the levy of sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issioner stated at that time was that "the Government was considering to abolish the tax on the line of Haryana Government". Barring asserting that the Deputy Commissioner had made a representation that "no sales tax would be liable..." on the sales of Indian- made foreign liquor and beer, the appellant has produced no material in support of that assertion. It appears from the letter written by the Secretary, Excise, to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, to the Deputy Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, on June 24, 1967, and from the letter written by the Chief Secretary to the Himachal Pradesh Government to the Additional Secretary (U.T.) to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, on January 16, 1968, that the Government of Himachal Pradesh wanted to bring their sales tax laws relating to the sale of Indian-made foreign liquor in line with the law in force in Haryana State. But it is clear from those letters that the Himachal Pradesh Government was of the opinion that it could not do so without the concurrence of the Central Government. Whether the Himachal Pradesh Government was competent to alter the sales tax law as desired by it without the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ernment had decided to abolish the sales tax on sale of Indian-made foreign liquor. According to the respondents, all that the Deputy Commissioner had represented to the bidders was that the Government was considering the abolition of the sales tax on sale of Indian-made foreign liquor; such a representation cannot be considered as a condition of the auction, assuming that such a condition can be imposed orally by the Deputy Commissioner. Hence in our opinion the Division Bench erred in its conclusion about the alleged representation by the Deputy Commissioner. This finding alone is sufficient to dismiss the appeal but as Mr. Sibal, learned counsel for the appellant has elaborately argued the question of law to which we shall presently refer, we shall examine the same. Simla was a part of Punjab till reorganisation of Punjab in 1966. Simla and two other districts of the former State of Punjab were added on to the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh under the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966. Under the provisions of that Act, the laws in force, immediately before the appointed date, namely, October 1, 1966, in those districts were to continue in operation till the appropriate Legis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eal issue calling for determination. In reality he wants this court to direct the Government to delete the entry in question from Schedule A and include the same in Schedule B. Article 265 of the Constitution lays down that no tax can be levied and collected except by authority of law. Hence the levy of a tax can only be done by the authority of law and not by any executive order. Unless the executive is specifically empowered by law to give any exemption, it cannot say that it will not enforce the law as against a particular person. No court can give a direction to a Government to refrain from enforcing a provision of law. Under these circumstances, we must hold that the relief asked for by the appellant cannot be granted. In support of its contention, the appellant relied on two decisions of this court. The first is Collector of Bombay v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Bombay [1952] S.C.R. 43. The facts of that case are as follows: In 1865, the Government of Bombay called upon the predecessor-in- title of the Corporation of Bombay to remove some markets from a certain site and vacate it. On the application of the then Municipal Commissioner, the Government passed a resol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat land free of rent, it had acquired an adverse title to the property though the right acquired was a limited one. This is what the court observed (page 52 of the report): "Such possession not being referable to any legal title it was prima facie adverse to the legal title of the Government as owner of the land from the very moment the predecessor-in-title of the respondent-Corporation took possession of the land under an invalid grant. This possession was continued openly, as of right, uninterruptedly for over 70 years and the respondent-Corporation had acquired the limited title in it and its predecessor-in-title had been prescribing for during all this period, that is to say, the right to hold the land in perpetuity free from rent but only for the purposes of a market in terms of the Government resolution of 1865. The immunity from the liability to pay rent is just as much an integral part or an inseverable incident of the title so acquired as is the obligation to hold the land for the purposes of a market and for no other purpose." From these observations, it is clear that in that case the court was only considering the relationship between a landlord and a tenant. It was s....