BISHNUPUR ENTERPRISES Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Mr. N. Kotiswor Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. H. N. K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Somorjit Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) ON request of the counsel of the parties the entire matter has been taken up for final disposal when the matter is listed in order column on January 11, 2001 for deciding a Misc. case being C. Misc. Appln. No. 623 of 2000 arising out of the present W. P. (C) No. 1559 of 2000 praying for vacation, alteration or modification of the interim order dated December 1, 2000. Both the parties have agreed that the matter may be finally heard and disposed of instead of deciding the miscellaneous application as mentioned above considering the urgency of the matter. Accordingly the entire matter has been heard on merit. The sole issue involved in this application under article 226 of the Constitution pertains to the legality and validity of the office memorandum dated September 27, 2000, issued by the Commissioner of Taxes, Manipur, by which all traders dealing in cement, iron and steel of all sizes and chemical fertilisers are required to pay lump sum advance sales tax as detailed in the said office memorandum.

(3.) THE contentions of Mr. N. Kotiswor Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, are of twofolds. The first contention is that the impugned office memorandum is ex facie violative of the provision of the Act as well as against the mandate of the Constitution, and the second contention of Mr. Kotiswor Singh is that the impugned office memorandum dated September 27, 2000, was issued by the Commissioner of Taxes who has no authority and jurisdiction to issue such memorandum. Taking into account all these two points alone, the impugned office memorandum is liable to be quashed and set aside. On the other hand, challenging the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. N. Kotiswor Singh, Mr. H. N. K. Singh, the learned Senior Counsel for the Revenue, has strongly defended the impugned office memorandum and stated that the matter relates to the fiscal policy of the Government of Manipur. Due to uncontrollable or undetectable malpractices or such other practices accepted by the businessmen, dealers in the State for avoiding payment of sales tax under the Act, the State respondents are constrained to resort to such office order thereby adopting a system to recover or otherwise to collect the tax at the first instance or instantaneously. It is contended that the said impugned office memorandum is permissible within the parameter and jurisdiction of the Act.