ALLIED SHABIR & CO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent No. 1 has amplified sub rule(99) of rule -6 of the General Sales Tax Act (Jammu & Kashmir) rules 1958 vide SRO 297 dated: 16th Dec. 1992 which reads as under:

(2.) THE registered dealers of the valley have challenged the aforementioned SRO through several writ petitions and relevant particulars of these writ petitions are reflected in the schedule appended to this judgment. In these petitions similar questions of law are involved, therefore, I proceed to dispose of bunch of petitions by this common judgment.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondents have defended the state action on the ground that the petitioners obtain the forms and avail of the benefit of concessional rates of tax but are not prepare to furnish the information which is relevant for imposing Tax. It is contented that the Govt. has evolved an amnesty scheme as well but petitioners have not chosen to avail of its benefit and continue to detain the forms on the strength of interim directions passed in the writ petitions by the court which interim directions work detrimental to the interests of the State. Mr. Advocate General has placed reliance on commercial Tax Officer, Rudha Bazar Vs. Bengal Poultries Ltd. (1986) 61 STC 219 in which case a question had arisen as to whether commercial officer had the jurisdiction to with -hold the declaration forms under rule 27 AA (2)(c) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules unless the returns are filed whereas in the case in hand challenge is thrown to the impugned insertion to sub rule (aa) of rule 6 of Central Sales Tax (J&K). Rules 1958. Thus controversy is slightly different in the case in hand and with a view to address to the contentious legal issues same are set out hereunder for purposes of consideration: