DAYABHAI KASHIBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is running a mill-canteen at the premises of Binod Mills Co. Ltd, Ujjain for and on behalf of the said mill. The respondents assessed the petitioner for the period from 18-6-1980 to 18-6-1981 under the M. P. General Sales Tax Act as also consequential assessment under the Entry Tax Act. The aforesaid mill is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act and is carrying on the business of manufacturing and sale of cloth and is a registered dealer under the provisions of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act. The mill is paying sales tax as also the entry tax on the excisable transactions. Under Section 46 of the Factories Act, the mill is under obligation to provide and maintain canteen for the use of workers employed by it. The activity is, therefore, incidental and integral one. The mill entrusted this work to the petitioner under a valid contract who performed this activity, fixed under the statute as representative and agent of the mill (Annexures P/1 and P/2 ). The petitioner, possessed no independent right to employ workers to run this canteen. The mill exercised the entire control over the management and the employees of the canteen. The respondent No. 3 (Sales Tax Officer) completed the assessment for the aforesaid period vide order dated 29-10-1982 (Annexure P/3), and imposed the liability on the assumption of sale of edible articles to the customers, who were none other than the workers of the mill. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred revision petition before the Respondent No. 2 the Commissioner of Sales Tax Department under Section 39 (1) of the aforesaid Act impugning the order of assessment on the aforesaid grounds. The order was also challenged as being in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Regional Dy. Commissioner accepted the revision and set aside the order on 8-2-1983 (Annexures P/4 and P/5 ). The case was remanded for fresh assessment after investigation of requisite facts. The Additional Sales Tax Officer took up the matter in pursuance of the order of remand and issued notices to the petitioner. The petitioner filed an affidavit in support of his contention. He also contended that non-registration was due to bona fide belief that he was not liable to pay any tax. The Addl. Sales Tax Officer, however, overruled all the objections and completed the assessment on 30-6-1983 and assessed the petitioner to levy and collect the tax and penalty quantified at Rs. 51,636 (Annexures P/6 and P/7 ). The Sales Tax Officer also levied Entry Tax and penalty under the provisions of the Entry Tax (Annexure P/8 ). The petitioner, feeling aggrieved, preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority i. e. the Dy. Commissioner of Sales Tax (Annexures P/11, P/9 and P10 ). The Appellate Authority however, sustained the order of Addl. Sales Tax Officer. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Second Appeals before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue dismissed the appeals by a common order dated 30-4-1985 (Annexure P/14 ). The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders passed by the assessing authority, revisional authority and the appellate authority and thus, seeks quashment of the orders marked as Annexures P/3, P/7, P/5, P/8, P/11 and P/14.

(3.) THE respondents have filed the return in opposition.