1962 (9) TMI 44 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Assessment of the assessee to sales tax under the U.P. Sales Tax Act for the assessment years 1955-56 and 1956-57; Interpretation of section 11(1) and section 11(4) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act regarding the right to apply for referring a question of law to the High Court; Jurisdiction of the High Court under section 11(4) in case of refusal by the Revising Authority to state the case based on the grounds of no question of law arising and defects in the application made under section 11(1).

The High Court of ALLAHABAD delivered a judgment concerning the assessment of the assessee to sales tax under the U.P. Sales Tax Act for the years 1955-56 and 1956-57. The assessee filed revision applications under section 10 of the Act, seeking to refer questions of law to the High Court. The Judge (Revisions) rejected a second application as time-barred and dismissed the first application due to defects. The assessee then approached the High Court under section 11(4) challenging the decision of the Revising Authority. The High Court analyzed the provisions of section 11(4) and held that the Revising Authority's refusal to state the case based on the application's defects meant that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to require the case to be stated. The High Court emphasized that for its jurisdiction under section 11(4) to apply, the Revising Authority must refuse to state the case exclusively on the ground that no question of law arises from a valid application made under section 11(1). The Court concluded that the application was misconceived, dismissing it with costs. The judgment clarified that the High Court's role is limited to deciding questions of law arising from the Revising Authority's order under section 10, not the validity of the application under section 11(1.

In analyzing the interpretation of section 11(4) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, the High Court emphasized that the Revising Authority's refusal to state the case must be solely based on the ground that no question of law arises from a valid application made under section 11(1). The Court highlighted that if an application does not meet all conditions prescribed in section 11(1, it can be dismissed immediately without the Revising Authority deciding on the question of law arising from its order under section 10. The judgment clarified that the High Court's jurisdiction under section 11(4) does not extend to cases where the Revising Authority rejects the application based on defects or other grounds, apart from the absence of a question of law. The Court stressed that the legislative intent was for the High Court to intervene only when the Revising Authority's refusal is solely on the basis of no question of law arising from a valid application under section 11(1.

Regarding the jurisdiction of the High Court under section 11(4) in case of refusal by the Revising Authority to state the case, the judgment outlined the legislative framework indicating that the High Court can require the case to be stated only if the Revising Authority refuses to do so based exclusively on the absence of a question of law arising from a valid application under section 11(1). The Court clarified that the High Court's role is limited to deciding the question of law arising from the Revising Authority's order under section 10, without delving into the validity of the application under section 11(1. The judgment emphasized that the legislative intent did not grant the High Court the power to intervene if the Revising Authority's refusal was based on grounds other than the absence of a question of law from a valid application under section 11(1.