GHASIRAM MANGILAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the assessment orders passed against the petitioner on 18th February, 1965 in respect of assessment years 1963-64 and 1964-65 on the ground that the sales-tax assessed on the sale of imported 'bardana' is invalid.

(2.) THE petitioner is a registered partnership firm carrying on the business of commission agent for the sale of gunny bags which come under the category of 'bardana'. Under sec. 4 (2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, the Government of Rajasthan issued a notification which runs as follows: " Excise & Taxation Department Notification Jaipur, August 11, 1959 No. F. 5 (139) E&t/57in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sec. (2) of sec. 4 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (Act No. XXIX of 1954) and in supersession of this department notification No. F. 5 (39) E&to 57 dated the 19th December, 1958, the State Government being of the opinion that it is expedient in the public interest to do so, hereby exempts from tax the sale of Bardana (old, new or being received as container) except on the first point at the hands of an importer in the series of sales in the State. By order of the Governor, Sd/- G. S. Purohit Secretary to Government. " THE petitioner's case is that it was granted a certificate of exemption on the basis of its being a commission agent in the financial year 1961-62. It is also stated in the petition that the petitioner's firm paid the necessary renewal fees for the financial years 1962-63, 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66 and the exemption certificate thus continued to be in force till the end of the financial year 1965-66. THE petitioner has further submitted that the commercial Taxes Officer, Jaipur City, respondent No. 2, assessed it to tax for the year 1961-62 and 1962-63 by assessment orders dated 6 8 63. THE petitioner claimed exemption on the sale of gunny bags, but it was not granted. It then filed an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner, Excise & Taxation (Appeals), Jaipur, who by his order dated 6-5-64 allowed it and remanded the cases for both the assessment years to respondent No. 2 with a direction to the taxing authority to make further inquiry as to who would be the first point dealer liable to be assessed in the circumstances of the case. Thus, the petitioner's cases for the year 1961-62 and 1962-63 are pending before the taxing authority. THE petitioner goes on to state that the quarterly returns of turn-over for the succeeding years 1963-64 and 1964-65 were submitted to the taxing authority and in the said returns, it claimed exemption from payment of sales-tax on the sale of 'bardana' imported by it from outside the State of Rajasthan. THE petitioner's grievance is that the taxing authority did not call upon the petitioner to produce any evidence and by its order dated 18-2-65 held that the petitioner was liable to pay tax on the sale of the gunny bags imported by it from outside Rajasthan. THE taxing authority also levied a penalty of Rs. 25,000 on the petitioner for the year 1963-64 and a similar penalty of Rs. 17,000 for the year 1964-65 for not filing returns in time. THEse assessment orders passed by the respondent No. 2 for the years 1963-64 and 1964-65 are being assailed before us. It appears that the petitioner instead of going in appeal against the said orders has chosen to file this writ application in this Court on the ground that levy of sales-tax on the imported 'bardana' is bad and unconstitutional. It is prayed that the assessment orders dated 18 2-65 be quashed and the amount of tax realised from the petitioner in pursuance thereof be ordered to be refunded.