1965 (10) TMI 61 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 32 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act to proceedings under the Central Sales Tax Act.
2. Jurisdiction to levy tax on inter-State transactions.
3. Authority of the Magistrate to question the validity of the tax assessment.
4. Validity of Section 32 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 32 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act to proceedings under the Central Sales Tax Act:
The petitioner contended that Section 32 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act does not apply to proceedings under the Central Sales Tax Act. The court referenced Section 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, which empowers state authorities to assess, collect, and enforce payment of tax under the Central Act in the same manner as under the state sales tax law. The court cited the decision in Adinarayana Setty v. Commercial Tax Officer, Kolar, which held that state authorities could exercise their powers under the general sales tax law for the Central Act. Therefore, the court found no merit in the petitioner's contention.

2. Jurisdiction to levy tax on inter-State transactions:
The petitioner argued that the transactions in question were inter-State and thus outside the purview of the Mysore Act. He cited the Supreme Court decision in The State of Mysore v. Yaddalam Lakshminarasimhiah Setty & Sons, which held that exemptions under the state law apply to the Central Act. The court, however, emphasized that the petitioner should have raised these issues before the appropriate authorities through the appeals and revisions provided under the Act. The court concluded that the petitioner's failure to utilize these remedies precluded him from raising the issue of jurisdiction in the current proceedings.

3. Authority of the Magistrate to question the validity of the tax assessment:
The petitioner contended that the Magistrate could question the validity of the tax assessment during recovery proceedings. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Kamala Mills Ltd. v. State of Bombay, which stated that appropriate authorities under the Act are empowered to assess and enforce tax payments, and their decisions cannot be challenged for jurisdictional errors in recovery proceedings. The court also cited the Division Bench decision in The State v. G.L. Udyawar, which clarified that the Magistrate's role in recovery proceedings is ministerial and executive, not judicial. Consequently, the court held that the Magistrate could not question the validity of the assessment.

4. Validity of Section 32 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution:
The petitioner argued that Section 32 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act violated Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution by restricting the right to appeal. The court noted that this point was not raised in the original grounds of revision. The court further observed that Section 20 of the Act now provides a right of appeal to any person affected by an order, not just the assessee. Since the petitioner had the opportunity to appeal and did not face any hardship due to the prohibition in Section 32, the court found no merit in this contention. The court deemed the argument academic and unnecessary to decide in this case.

Conclusion:
The court found no merit in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner. The revision petition was dismissed with costs.

← Previous Next →