STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. SHYAMA CHARAN SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by certificate from a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in a writ petition filed by the respondent challenging certain orders relating to assessment of sales tax.

(2.) The respondent held mineral concessions for extracting manganese ore in respect of mining areas in the districts of Balaghat, Chhindwara, Bhandara and Nagpur in the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh i.e., before the reorganisation of the State, Under sec. 4 of the Central Provinces & Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947, hereinafter called the "Act of 1947" which was then applicable a dealer was liable to pay tax on all the sales if the gross turnover exceeded the limit specified in sec. 4(5) of the Act of 1947 and he was required under sec. 8 to get himself registered as a dealer. The material period, in the present case, is from October 1, 1953 to December 26, 1958. This may be split up into two periods : (1) October 1, 1953 to October 31, 1956 (till that date Nagpur and Bhandara districts formed part of the State of Maharashtra). According to the appellant the respondent effected sales of manganese ore from the mines during the aforesaid periods without registering himself as a dealer in spite of the fact that the turnover exceeded the prescribed limit. A number of notices were issued by the Sales Tax Officer, Chhindwara calling upon the respondent to get himself registered and to show cause why he should not be assessed under sec. 11(5) of the Act of 1947 which was subsequently repeated and was replaced by the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 hereinafter caller the "Act of 1958". Towards the end of the year 1958 the respondent applied for registration to the Sales Tax Officer, Chhindwara Circle exercising jurisdiction over the Balaghat and Chhindwara districts. On December 27, 1958 a registration certificate was granted to him. Thereafter the Sales Tax Officer issued a notice to the respondent under secs. 17, 18 and 19 of the Act of 1958. He proceeded to assess the respondent for the period October 1, 1953 to December 26, 1958. The amount assessed came to Rs. 31,580.42 and a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed. The respondent filed an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax. As he did not deposit the past dues of the tax and the penalty demanded of him the appeal was not admitted in view of sec. 38(3) of the Act of 1958 or sec. 22 of the Act of 1947. On January 23, 1961 the respondent preferred an appeal to the Board of Revenue without depositing the amount of tax required to be deposited under the law. That appeal was also not admitted.

(3.) On March 28, 1966 the respondent filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of assessment dated April 23, 1960 passed by the Sales Tax Officer as also the orders of the appellate authorities. In the writ petition a number of points were raised by the respondent some of which may be noticed. (1) The Sales Tax Officer, Balaghat or Chhindwara had no jurisdiction to assess the writ petitioner to tax in respect of sales which took place from the districts of Bhandara and Nagpur which were part of the Maharashtra. As the order of assessment in included sales of ore from those districts also it was void. (2) The Sales Tax Officer had no jurisdiction to include the sales in respect of manganese in the taxable turnover when those sales were for export outside India. (3) The Sales Tax Officer had no power to assess the writ petitioner under sec. 18(6) of the Act of 1958 when the liability arose for the period prior to April 1, 1959 when the provisions of the Act of 1947 were in force. (4) That the assessments were barred by time. (5) By virtue of sec. 78 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, the States of Madhya Pradesh had no jurisdiction to recover the amount of tax in respect of sales prior to November 1, 1956 which had been completed at Nagpur which was included in the State of Maharashtra with effect from November 1, 1956; and (6) the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Board of Revenue were in error in not entertaining the appeals on the ground that the amount of tax assessed had not been deposited.