NEW KIRAN CASHEWS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 9166/2006 (T -KST), dated 17 -1 -2007 is challenged in this appeal, urging various grounds. As the learned Single Judge has referred to the relevant facts and the legal contentions in the impugned order, therefore the same are not required to be adverted in this order, wherein the learned single Judge has not accepted the case of the appellant herein by recording reasons at Paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 in the impugned order.

(2.) We have perused the reasons recorded by the learned Single Judge in the order impugned in this appeal. The learned Single Judge has rightly stated that by inserting Sec. 6A to the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 with effect from 11 -5 -2002, the appellant has sought to declare the words "and if the dealer fails to furnish such declaration, then, the movement of such goods shall be deemed for all purposes of this Act to have been occasioned as a result of sale" as it is ultra vires to the Constitution. With reference to the above legal contention urged in the Writ Petition, the learned Single Judge at Paragraph 5 of the impugned order has rejected the contentions by assigning his reasons stating that such fictions are created under the taxing statute for the purpose of preventing pilferage of revenue and further, has rightly stated that when the provision creating the fiction provides for an opportunity to assessee or a dealer to make good his case that it is only a stock transfer and it is only on his failure to prove the same, then only that transaction has to be taken as transaction of sale. The learned Single Judge rightly held that the said provision of the Act does not make it unconstitutional. Further, for valid reasons recorded at Paragraphs 6 and 7 in the order, the learned Single Judge rejected the Writ Petition holding that as the question of interpretation of provisions of Sec. 6A of the Act does not arise unless the matter comes up for examination in a proper manner, the Court cannot examine the assessment order for the purpose of interpreting provision, when the matter can go through various statutory authorities. Therefore, the learned Single Judge held that the prayer seeking for declaration for interpretation of the aforesaid provision in any particular manner is also not necessary and rightly rejected the petition.

(3.) We are in full agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in this case. In our opinion, the impugned order does not call for interference in this appeal. For the reasons stated supra the appeal must fail as the same is devoid of merits. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.