1961 (2) TMI 53 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging assessment case for 1953-54 and seeking refund of sales tax paid.
- Allegations of unauthorized and illegal assessment.
- Rejection of revision petition by Financial Commissioner as time-barred.
- Correspondence between Punjab Coal Merchants Association and Excise and Taxation Commissioner regarding sales tax liability.
- Lack of communication of revision result to the petitioner.
- Court's authority to set aside Financial Commissioner's order under Article 227.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a private company engaged in the business of coal agents, filed a petition challenging the assessment case for the year 1953-54 and seeking the refund of sales tax paid. The petitioner alleged that the assessment was unauthorized and illegal as they did not sell the coal secured on behalf of depot-holders and consumers. The petitioner also contested the rejection of their revision petition by the Financial Commissioner as time-barred, arguing that no period of limitation was prescribed by law for such revisions. The petitioner further highlighted correspondence between the Punjab Coal Merchants Association and the Excise and Taxation Commissioner regarding the liability of coal agents to pay sales tax under the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act.

The Court noted that the Financial Commissioner's decision was based on a misapprehension regarding the communication of the revision result to the petitioner. The Court emphasized the importance of procedural regulations and practices in advancing justice, stating that rules of practice must not be rigid when statutory rules do not specify a limitation period. The Court highlighted the need to interpret statutes conferring rights liberally to ensure cases are considered on merits and technicalities do not impede the trial of a cause. The Court invoked its authority under Article 227 to set aside the Financial Commissioner's order and directed that the petitioner's revision be heard on its merits.

In conclusion, the Court set aside the Financial Commissioner's order, directing a proper hearing of the petitioner's revision according to the law. The Court criticized the respondents for contesting the petition despite knowing about the misapprehension underlying the Financial Commissioner's decision. The petitioner was awarded costs for the proceedings, and the petition was allowed.