DEEP CHAND GOYAL Vs. SALES TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This bunch of writ petitions can be conveniently taken up and disposed of together. These petitions seek to challenge the notice dated 21st July, 1977, issued by the Sales Tax Officer, Sector II, Budaun, in respect of the assessment years 1973-74 to 1977-78 for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 15-A(1)(a) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, hereafter "the Act".

(2.) The facts set out in the petitions are almost similar. We would set out the facts contained in Writ Petition No. 333 of 1977. Petitioner No. 1, M/s. Deep Chand Goyal, Babrala, Budaun, is a registered firm of which petitioner No. 2, Deep Chand Goyal, is one of the partners. This firm is engaged in carrying on business in purchase and sale of binaula, which is a cotton seed. The turnover in respect of sales of cotton seed had been exempted under Section 4 of the Act. But, by means of Notification No. ST II-2526/X--6(8)-73 dated 1st May, 1973, issued under Section 3-D of the Act, oil-seeds had been made liable to tax at the point of first purchase. For the assessment year 1973-74 the Sales Tax Officer, Sector II, Budaun, respondent No. 1, exempted the turnover of cotton seed sold by the petitioner. However, on 21st July, 1977, he issued a notice under Section 15-A (1)(a) of the Act requiring the petitioners to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed for not depositing the tax on the turnover of cotton seed in view of the notification aforesaid. This notice has been issued for the assessment years 1973-74 to 1977-78. The petitioners challenged this notice, inter alia, on the grounds that since the turnover in respect of binaula stood exempted under Section 4 of the Act, the petitioners were not required to deposit any tax in respect thereof and respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 15-A(1)(a) of the Act. Another ground, on which the notice has been challenged, is that a single notice for the assessment years 1973-74 to 1977-78 is illegal and bad.

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in which by reference to the various notifications it has been sought to make out that the turnover in respect of sales of cotton seed was exempt up to 30th April, 1973. Thereafter from 1st May, 1973, to 4th April, 1975, the sales were exempt but first purchases were taxable at 3 per cent under Section 3-D of the Act. The same position continued up to 1st October, 1975, and thereafter from 2nd October, 1975, to 31st January, 1978, the turnover of sales of cotton seeds was made taxable at 4 per cent and thereafter up till now again purchase tax is payable at 4 per cent. It is thus claimed that the impugned notice was legal and valid.