CHRISTIAN MICA INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER Section 20-A of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") the Superintendent of Commercial Taxes served a notice upon the dealer M/s. Christian Mica Industries Ltd. as to why the dealer should not deposit in the Government treasury the amount of Rs. 61,011 collected as sales tax by it from the purchasers on sale of mica in respect of which it was not liable to pay such tax and which amount had not been refunded to the purchasers from whom the amount was collected. The dealer appeared and contended that a part of the amount had already been refunded to the purchasers of mica, but that was not accepted and by order dated the 9th December, 1963, it was directed to deposit the said sum into the Government treasury. After having been unsuccessful in its appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and revision before the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, the dealer prayed for a reference to this court. That prayer was also refused by the Tribunal. Then it came to this court and by its order dated the 17th October, 1968, the court directed the Tribunal to refer the following question for decision of this court. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the petitioner can be directed to deposit into the Government treasury the amount of Rs. 61,011 said to have been collected by it as sales tax on account of sale of mica during the year 1950-51 ?

(2.) IT has been contended by the learned counsel for the dealer that Section 20-A(3) of the Act is ultra vires and, therefore, the order of the Superintendent of Commercial Taxes for depositing the aforesaid amount is bad and the reference must be answered in the negative. In Ashoka Marketing Ltd. v. The State of Bihar A.T.R. 1971 S.C. 946, the Supreme Court has held that Section 20-A(3), (4) and (5) are ultra vires of the State Legislature. IT is obvious, therefore, that the Superintendent of Commercial Taxes had no authority to direct the dealer to deposit the aforesaid amount and he could not direct it to do so. In the circumstances, the question referred to the court is answered in the negative. There will be no order as to costs.