1958 (5) TMI 38 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Disqualification under Section 7(d) of the Representation of the People Act.
2. Validity and admissibility of evidence under Section 23 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act.
3. Interpretation of "share or interest" in contracts under Section 7(d) of the Act.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Disqualification under Section 7(d) of the Representation of the People Act
The primary issue was whether the appellant was disqualified under Section 7(d) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, for being chosen as a member of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly. The respondent alleged that the appellant, along with his family members, carried on business in the name of Messrs Azmatullah Inayatullah, which had a contract with the Uttar Pradesh Government for the supply of sleepers. The appellant denied having any share or interest in the contract or the business.

The court examined four key points:
1. Existence of Contract: The court found that the firm Azmatullah Inayatullah had a contract for the supply of sleepers to the Uttar Pradesh Government, which subsisted on the relevant dates.
2. Appellant's Share or Interest: The court concluded that the appellant had a share or interest in the contract based on evidence from sales tax assessment documents.
3. Contract for the Appellant's Benefit: The court held that the contract was entered into by the appellant's brother for the benefit of the appellant.
4. Contract with the Government: It was established that the contract was for the supply of sleepers to the Uttar Pradesh Government.

The court concluded that the appellant was disqualified under Section 7(d) of the Act, rendering his election void under Section 100(1)(a) of the Act.

Issue 2: Validity and Admissibility of Evidence under Section 23 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act
The appellant's counsel argued that documents from sales tax proceedings were inadmissible as evidence due to the confidentiality provisions of Section 23 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The court compared Section 23 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act with Section 54 of the Indian Income-tax Act and found significant differences.

The court noted:
- Section 23(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act does not include the words "all particulars contained in any record of any assessment proceeding," unlike Section 54(1) of the Income-tax Act.
- Section 23(1) lacks a specific prohibition against courts requiring public servants to produce documents, which is present in Section 54(1) of the Income-tax Act.

The court concluded that the confidentiality provision was intended to prevent voluntary disclosure by tax officers, not to bar courts from admitting such documents as evidence. Consequently, the assessment order (Exhibit 9), return of sales tax (Exhibit 44), and the appellant's statement (Exhibit 48) were deemed admissible.

Issue 3: Interpretation of "Share or Interest" in Contracts under Section 7(d) of the Act
The appellant argued that the disqualification under Section 7(d) did not apply to partners in a firm unless the contract was for the exclusive benefit of the candidate. The court rejected this argument, stating that the disqualification applied if the candidate had any share or interest in the contract, regardless of whether the benefit was exclusive.

The court emphasized:
- If a partner takes a contract on behalf of the firm, all partners, including the candidate, are disqualified if the contract is for the supply of goods to the government.
- The term "for his benefit" does not imply exclusivity; a shared benefit among partners is sufficient for disqualification.

The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Election Tribunal's decision, and awarded costs to the respondent.

Conclusion
The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the appellant was found disqualified under Section 7(d) of the Representation of the People Act. The court upheld the admissibility of sales tax documents and clarified the interpretation of "share or interest" in contracts under the Act.

← Previous Next →