UNION OF INDIA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner/western Railways are aggrieved by the demand notice dated November 15, 1999 issued by respondent No. 3-- Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle-I, Ratlam, under Section 33 (3) of the Madhya Pradesh Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam, 1994.

(2.) THE petitioners have sought to impugn the demand as according to them it is contrary to the mandate of Article 285 (1) of the Constitution which prohibits imposition of any tax by the State Government against the Union of India. The respondents have, however, defended the impugned demand and it was contended that the petitioners were dealers within the meaning of Section 2 (h) of the Adhiniyam, 1994 and were liable to be assessed for payment of commercial tax. A preliminary objection was also raised that since the dispute is between the Government of India and the State Government, it fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, under Article 131 of the Constitution.

(3.) AS regards the preliminary objection, it may be noted at the outset that there is no such dispute between the Central and State Governments and the present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking quashment of the demand raised by respondent No. 3--a quasi-judicial authority under the Adhiniyam, 1994. Union of India and the State Government have been made parties mainly because the demand is raised against the railways owned by the Union of India and the demand is raised by an authority constituted by the State Government. In all most similar situation, the apex Court in Union of India v. State of Mysore AIR 1977 SC 127 held that jurisdiction of High Court to issue writ in such, matters was not excluded by Article 131.