JEEVAN JYOTI Vs. P.K. TRIPATHI AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this contempt petition alleging non compliance of an order of this Court passed on 19th January, 2000 in CW No. 3895/98. The order reads as under:

(2.) THE facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the petitioner had filed aforesaid Writ Petition challenging the Rule 8(4)(c)(ii) of Delhi Sales Tax Rules which provided that ST -1 forms shall not be issued to a party who had defaulted in making the payment of amount of tax assessed or penalty imposed by an appropriate Assessing authority which the applicant admits due from him and which is not in dispute. While the petition was pending, this High Court had delivered a judgment in case of Shri Krishna Engineering Co. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax and declared the aforesaid rule as ultra vires. After the judgment of Shri Krishna Engineering Company an amendment was made to proviso of Section 4(2)(a)(v) of Sales Tax Act and Sub -clause (ii) in Rule 8(4)(c) was re -inserted. This re -inserted rule was again challenged by a batch of petitions in the High Court and Delhi High Court in case of Prince Plastic & Chemical Industries v. C.S.T. : (2003) 131 STC 372 (Delhi) and in S.N.E (India) Private Limited v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, (2003) 13 STC 417 (Delhi) upheld the validity of the Rule. The matter was carried up to Supreme Court and judgment of Delhi High Court in Prince Plastic was upheld and the judgment in Shri Krishna Engineering Company was overruled by Supreme Court vide its judgment in Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi and Ors. v. Shri Krishna Engineering Co. and Ors. : (2005) 139 STC 457 (SC).

(3.) IT is not disputed that the statement was made by Counsel for the Commissioner of Sales Tax because of the judgment of this Court in Krishna Engineering Co. v. C.S.T. Delhi. Thus, the statement was an effect of the relevant provision having been held ultra vires by this Court. This judgment of the High Court was set aside and the Rule was held not to be ultra vires by the Supreme Court. The effect would be that this Rule was in existence from the very beginning and the operation of the Rule did not come to an end even during the period when the judgment of High Court had not been set aside.