COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX Vs. NAWI HUSSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being of opinion that there was apparent conflict in Commissionef of Sales Tax v. Sampat Raj Jain [1971] 27 STC 307 and Moti Dal Mills, Agra v. Sales Tax Officer (printed at page 405 infra) 1978 UPTC 606 two Division Bench decisions of our Court, on construction of Section 3-C(1) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, a learned single Judge directed papers to be laid before the Honourable the Chief Justice who in exercise of powers under Rule 6 of Chapter IV of Rules of the Court, directed these revisions to be listed before the Tax Bench. That is how these revisions came before us. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, although there appears to be no conflict, in these decisions, to which we shall advert later, yet we are not persuaded, as suggested by the learned standing counsel, to refer back these revisions as what can be done by a single Judge can, Surely, be done by a Division Bench. Converse may not be true. Further, propriety restrains us from adopting this course as each Judge, whether exercising jurisdiction as single Judge or in a Division Bench, acts as High Court. And, a learned single Judge having expressed his opinion it would not be proper for us to ask him to decide the revision on merits as in our opinion there was no conflict.

(2.) Before examing the rival submissions it may not be out of place to mention the back ground in which this section was added. As far back as 1957 in Jagat Behari Tandon v. Sales Tax Officer, Etawah [1957] 8 STC 459, problem of assessment of a dissolved firm arose. And, a Division Bench following decisions rendered under the Income-tctx Act ruled : In our judgment, as assessment order cannot be made under the U. P. Sales Tax Act on a firm after it has dissolved....

(3.) In order to overcome this difficulty and avoid any attempt by partners of a firm to evade payment of tax the legislature intervened and enacted this section by the U. P. Sales Tax (Second Amendment) Act (32 of 1957) with retrospective effect. Although it was amended in 1959 and 1961, but the amendments were nominal only and the principal section remained as it was. Its Sub-section (1), which is relevant for the controversy before us, is extracted below