HANUMAN PROSAD SINGHANIA Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rule has been obtained by the petitioner against an order of assessment dated 30th December, 1964, of the opposite party No. 1, the Commercial Tax Officer, Jorasanko Charge, under Section 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act) read with Section 11(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 (hereinafter referred to as the State Act of 1941). The period of assessment is the year ending K.B. 15, 2018, and the commodity in respect of which the assessment has been made is betel-nut (supari).

(2.) The petitioner carries on the business of a commission agent, in respect of various commodities including commodities notified under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the State Act of 1954). The petitioner is a registered dealer under the State Act of 1941 and the State Act of 1954 and he is also a registered dealer under the Central Act.

(3.) Section 25 of the State Act of 1954 provides that if the State Government is at any time of the opinion that it would be in the public interest that any commodity which is liable to taxation under the State Act of 1941 should be taxed under the State Act of 1954, it may by notification in the Official Gazette specify such commodity and direct that with effect from such date as may be fixed in the notification, the State Act of 1941 shall cease to apply to such commodity and the State Act of 1954 shall apply to such commodity. In exercise of the said power under Section 25 of the State Act of 1954, the State Government by a notification No. 885-F.T. dated 1st May, 1955, directed that certain commodities mentioned in the said notification, one of which being betel-nut, should be taxed under the State Act of 1954. It may be noted here that prior to the said notification, commodities specified therein including betel-nuts, were liable to taxation under the State Act of 1941.