BAJRANGLAL NANDALAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF TAXES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner firm is a dealer registered under the Assam Sales Tax Act. 1947. For the return period ending on 30 -9 -1956, the petitioner was assessed to sales tax of Rs. 1.266 and odd by the Superintendent of Taxes, Gauhati. An appeal was filed on 7 -2 -57 against his order dated 4 -1 -57 under Section 30 of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947, hereinafter called the Act to the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, Assam. The petitioner under protest affixed a Court -fee stamp of Rs. 10/ - to the Memorandum of appeal, as required by the Assam Court Fees (Amendment) Act, 1950: but paid no fee as required under Rule 74 of the Assam Sales Tax Rules, 1947.

(2.) RULE 29 of the Assam Sales Tax Rules provides that the memorandum of appeal shall be in Form No. 13, and Rule 30 provides that it shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the order appealed against and by the fee prescribed in Rule 74. Rule 31 lays clown that the memorandum of appeal shall be signed, verified and endorsed by the appellant or, his agent to the following effect:

(3.) IN the case of Rama Chandra Misra v. President, District Board, Ganjam it was held that Section 166 of the Madras Local Board Act was concerned with safeguarding the public roads whereas the Transport Authorities in Section 42. Motor Vehicles Act are concerned with the regulation of traffic in the interests of public safety and convenience. Thus when the objects of Section 42 of the Central Act and Section 166 of the Madras Act are entirely different though there is overlapping of the functions of the two bodies to some extent, the question of the provision of a later statute repealing by implication the provision in an earlier statute does not arise.