STATE OF GUJARAT STATE OF MAHARASHTRA SALES TAX OFFICER STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. PATEL RAMJIBHAI DANABHAI:M S PADVI: R G AJMERJ AND CO: BILLMOREGARDEVI MINING SYNDICATE P LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of two batches of appeals. The first batch includes Civil Appeals 287 to 290 and 2529 of 1972 and Civil Appeal 303 of 1974 preferred by the State of Gujarat/Sales Tax Officer on the basis of a certificate granted by the High Court. Of this batch, Civil Appeals 287 to 290 of 1972 are directed against a common judgment, dated July 8, 1970, of the High Court of Gujarat; while Civil Appeal 303 of 1974 is preferred against a judgment, dated July 4, 1973, of the Gujarat High Court, which follows its earlier decision in Patel Ranjibhai Dhanbhai v. A. S. Tambe, Sales Tax Officer, Anand.

(2.) The Second batch comprises of Civil Appeals 2450 and 2451 of 1972 and Civil Appeals 1260 and 1213 of 1975. They have been preferred by the state of Maharashtra after obtaining special leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution. Of these, the first two are directed against an Order, dated April 19, 1972, of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal which, in turn, is based on a judgment, dated October 11/12, 1971, of the Bombay High Court in S. C. A. No. 444 of 1968 (B. M. Jain v. State of Maharashtra); and the other two are directed against a judgment, dated October 11/12, 1971, of the High Court of Bombay.

(3.) The common question posed for our decision in all these appeals is, whether any of the provisions in Ss. 33 (6) and 35 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 1959 Act) which are in pari materia with Sections 14 (6) and 15, respectively, of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 (thereinafter called the 1953 Act), offend Art. 14 of the Constitution and, as such, are void. The High Courts/Tribunal in the concerned appeals have answered this question in affirmative, so far as S. 33 (6) of 1959 Act/14 (6) of 1953 Act is concerned. FIRST BATCH Facts in C. A. 287/72.