1958 (8) TMI 41

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Sales Tax Act to assess the petitioner. The contention is that previously a tax had been assessed on the petitioner in which the entire turnover was included, but at that time the Sales Tax Officer did not hold that the petitioner should be assessed on the entire turnover, because he accepted the books of account of the petitioner which showed that part of the turnover was concerning goods which the petitioner had purchased in the State. Subsequently, by the impugned order he held that the entire turnover of the petitioner was liable to assessment to sales tax because the entire goods were purchased by the petitioner outside U.P. He arrived at a definite finding, after consideration of all the circumstances, that part of the turnover which....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f to show that no adequate remedy is provided by the statute while providing a right of appeal. Sales tax is generally charged by the dealers from the customers and it is generally that very amount which is required by the Sales Tax Officer to be deposited as sales tax. Further, the amount of sales tax is very much less than the entire profits of the business of a particular dealer. In the instant case, the total turnover exceeds Rs. 12,00,000 and the additional sum that is being demanded from the petitioner as sales tax is a sum of Rs. 17,388-6-6. A dealer of the status of the petitioner is not likely to suffer any substantial harm by the deposit of this amount with the Sales Tax Officer during the period his appeal is pending before the J....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erfere with the fundamental right of the petitioner to carry on his trade. The facts of the case before their Lordships of the Supreme Court, therefore, were very different from the facts of the case before us, because it is not the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this case that any provision of the Sales Tax Act is inconsistent with any provision of the Constitution or that it is an invalid piece of legislation. The whole argument is that on a proper interpretation of section 21 of the Sales Tax Act it was not open to the Sales Tax Officer to assess the petitioner a second time. This is a question of pure interpretation of a provision of law and the principle laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court does no....