1973 (1) TMI 81 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the notification issued under section 3-A Held that - Appeal dismissed. If the assessee believed that contention to be true it would not have collected from its purchasers the tax at the rate of one anna per rupee. Further it is now well-settled by the decision of this court that no one can challenge the validity of a provision of an Act or rule made thereunder or even a notification issued either under the Act or under the Rules made, before the authorities constituted under the Act. It is true as contended by Mr. Gupte that these decisions were rendered long after 1962, but the fact remains that the decisions in question merely interpret what the law is.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dismissal of appeal by the assessing authority.
2. Applicability of section 3-A to an importer.
3. Validity of the notification issued under section 3-A.

Analysis:

The judgment by the Supreme Court involved appeals by a registered dealer under the U. P. Sales Tax Act, challenging the assessment of sales tax for the year 1957-58. The assessing authority determined the turnover of the assessee at Rs. 58,06,132.30 and the tax liability at Rs. 3,62,691.62 under section 3-A of the Act. The appellant filed an appeal within 30 days but deposited only a partial amount, leading to objections by the office of the Appellate judge regarding the maintainability of the appeal. The Sales Tax Officer contended that the appeal was not maintainable due to non-compliance with the proviso to section 9 of the Act, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.

Regarding the contentions raised, the first issue addressed was the dismissal of the appeal. The appellant argued that it was entitled to challenge the assessment in the appeal memorandum despite previous admissions. The Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the stand taken before the assessing authority is crucial, and the appellant's contention was deemed an afterthought. The Court highlighted the importance of payment of admitted tax amounts for appeal maintainability and dismissed the first contention raised by the appellant.

The second and third issues involved the applicability of section 3-A to an importer and the validity of the notification issued under it. The Court clarified that an importer can be considered a "successive dealer" under section 3-A, and thus the notification bringing the import of vanaspati under section 3-A was deemed valid. The Court referenced relevant provisions of the Act and rules to support this conclusion. Consequently, the last two contentions raised by the appellant were rejected.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court found no merit or equity in the appeals and dismissed them with costs, emphasizing the importance of maintaining consistency in admissions and contentions throughout the assessment and appeal processes. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the legal provisions and previous decisions to support its conclusions, ensuring clarity on the issues raised before the Court.