1958 (2) TMI 33 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Application for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ against the Commercial Tax Officer
- Validity of sales tax collection for the assessment years 1954-55 and 1955-56
- Bar on assessment for the year 1955-56 based on time limitation
- Validity of rules framed under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act
- Constitutionality of sales tax on pneumatic tyres, tubes, and automobile parts
- Availability of alternative remedies under the Sales Tax Act

Analysis:

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to direct the Commercial Tax Officer to refrain from further action on the assessment for the year 1955-56 and refund the amount collected for the years 1954-55 and 1955-56. The petitioner, a local agent for imported automobile parts, challenged the sales tax collection for the assessment years, contending that it was not authorized by law. Additionally, the petitioner argued that the assessment for 1955-56 was time-barred as per the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act of 1950, raising objections to the assessment notice issued on 10th January 1958.

The petitioner's claim for a refund was found not tenable in the writ proceedings. The petitioner's legal contentions included the validity of rules under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act and the constitutionality of sales tax on automobile parts and pneumatic tyres. The Court noted that the Act and rules came into force on 15th June 1957, and the rules were published after the Act was given effect, rejecting the petitioner's argument on the rules' validity. Regarding the constitutionality of the sales tax, the Court analyzed Articles 301, 302, and 304 of the Constitution, emphasizing that states have the power to impose taxes on goods produced within the state, even if it affects interstate trade.

The Court highlighted that the petitioner had not raised objections before the Commercial Tax Officer, and even if the contentions were valid, the petitioner could pursue alternative remedies under the Sales Tax Act. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief based on the circumstances of the case. The judgment underscored the availability of alternative remedies under the Sales Tax Act and the importance of following due process in challenging tax assessments.