STATE OF BIHAR Vs. S S MUKHERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case the Sales Tax Officer of Dhanbad assessed the petitioner to sales tax to the extent of Rs. 3,988-10-0 under Section 13(5) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act of 1947. A penalty of Rs. 5,011-6-0 was also imposed under Section 13(5) as the petitioner did not register himself as a dealer. The order of assessment is dated the 30th of May, 1949. The case of the petitioner was that contracts were entered into before the Amending Act (Act VI of 1949) came into force and that he was not liable to register himself as a dealer or to pay the sales tax which has been assessed upon him. Section 4(1) of Bihar Act, XIX of 1947, as it was originally enacted reads as follows :- "Subject to the provisions of Section 5, 6, 7 and 8 and with effect from such date as the Provincial Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint, being not earlier than thirty days after the date of the said notification, every dealer whose gross turnover during the year immediately preceding the commencement of this Act, on sales which have taken place both in and outside Bihar, exceeded Rs. 10,000 shall be liable to pay tax under this Act on sales which have taken place in Bihar after the date so notified : Provided that the tax shall not be payable on sales involved in the execution of a contract which is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioner to have been entered into by the dealer concerned on or before the date so notified." The contention of the petitioner was that the sales were involved in execution of the contracts which were entered into before the notification of the Provincial Government under Section 4(1) of the Act. This contention was rejected by the Sales Tax Authorities on the ground that Section 4(1) was amend with retrospective effect by Act VI of 1949. The Amending Act substituted the following proviso for the original proviso of Section 4(1) : "Provided that the tax shall not be payable on sales involved in the execution of a contract which is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioner to have been entered into by the dealer concerned on or before the 1st day of October, 1944." This Amending Act was extended to Chotanagpore by a notification of the Governor of Bihar under Section 92(1) of the Government of India Act. The notification is dated the 22nd of March, 1949.

(2.) UNDER Section 25(1) of the Act the petitioner applied to the Board of Revenue to state a case on the following two questions of law :

(3.) FOR these reasons we hold that the Amending Act (Act VI of 1949) which was extended to Chotanagpore on the 22nd of March, 1949, would govern the proceedings against the assessee though they were commenced on the 15th October, 1948. In other words, the question referred by the Board of Revenue for the opinion of the High Court must be answered against the assessee and in favour of the State of Bihar.