JHULELAL ENTERPRISES Vs. SALES TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by this petition has challenged the validity of section 38-A (2) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 and also prayed that the order (annexure P17) dated August 20, 1993, demanding security of Rs. 10,00,000 may be quashed and the order dated September 2, 1993 (annexure P20) cancelling the certificate of registration under the Sales Tax Act may also be quashed. It is also prayed that the respondent No. 3 may be directed to furnish the requisite information to the respondent No. 1 as per their record maintained in accordance with the provisions of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Act and the Rules framed by the Krishi Upaj Mandi, Dabra. The petitioner also prayed that the notice for assessment (annexure P24) may also be quashed.

(2.) THE petitioner is carrying on the business of purchase and sale of grain, oil-seeds, pulses and paddy at Dabra, which commenced with effect from November 1, 1992 and applied for registration under section 16 of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). The petitioner was liable to pay tax with effect from November 12, 1992 and according to proviso (ii) of the rule 15 of the M. P. General Sales Tax Rules, a dealer is required to file a return for the broken period of a quarter ending first after the date on which the dealer becomes liable to pay the tax and the quarter immediately following. As such, the first return which the petitioner was required to file was for the period from November 12, 1992 to March 31, 1993. The broken period was from November 12, 1992 to December 31, 1992. For this broken period, when the last return which was due to be filed for the period from January 1, 1993 to March 31, 1993, was filed on April 30, 1993. Despite that, the respondent issued show cause notice why the security of Rs. 10 lakhs may not be furnished by the petitioner under section 16-A (2) read with sub-section (3) of the Act. The petitioner filed return on April 30, 1993 but despite that, the order was passed for security of Rs. 10,00,000 vide annexure P17. Since the petitioner did not furnish security, therefore, his registration was cancelled vide annexure P20, dated September 2, 1993 under section 15 (1) (c) of the Act. Therefore, the petitioner rushed to this Court by filing this petition challenging the validity of section 38-A (2) and also prayed for quashing both these orders and further prayed that he should be given all the relevant information for assessing his taxing liability.

(3.) WE have heard the parties and perused the record.