VISHESHWAR SINGH Vs. PROVINCE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal by the plff. whose suit has been dismissed by the Additional Subordinate Judge of Darbhanga, the two questions for decisions are whether the suit is maintainable & whether the appellant is a "dealer" within the meaning of the Sales Tax Act (The Bihar Act IV (4) of 1944) hereafter to be called the Act.

(2.) Except as to whether the plff. is a dealer within the meaning of the Act, the facts are not in dispute. The plff. Raja Visheshwar Singh Bahadur is the proprietor of Rajnagar Estate in the district of Darbhanga & possesses extensive zirat fields on which he grows grains like paddy, khesari, wheat & gram besides sugar-cane. After meeting the personal requirements of himself, his family & his large staff, a portion of the excess, which is not required to be stored for consumption, is sold. The cause of action for the suit was that in February 1945, the Sales Tax Officer of Darbhanga, served the plff. with a notice that he should get himself registered as a dealer under the Act, but the plff. denied that he was a dealer within the meaning of the Act. The Superintendent of Commercial Taxes, Darbhanga, Circle, however, called upon the plff. to produce the papers by his notice dated 1-6-1945, apparently under Section 9 of the Act. The plff. again denied his liability to furnish the returns or produce the papers, & accordingly the plff. served a notice dated 20-6-1945 on the deft., who is the Province of Bihar, requesting the Superintendent for the withdrawal of the aforesaid notice. As the Sales Tax Officers appeared to be unwilling to withdraw the notice, the plff. instituted the suit giving rise to this appeal on 7-9-1945 for the following reliefs: that a declaration be made in the plff's favour that he is not a dealer under the Sales Tax Act & so need not get himself registered under the Act & is not liable to assessment of Sales Tax; & that a permanent injunction be granted restraining the deft, from ever proceeding with the assessment & realising any tax under the Sales Tax Act from the plff. The suit was valued at Rs. 5001/-.

(3.) The deft's contention was that the suit was not maintainable & was barred under the provisions of the Act & the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try it, & further that the deft. was a dealer within the meaning of the Act.