1966 (1) TMI 70 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to orders dated April 30, 1965, and February 22, 1964, under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act.

Analysis:
The petitioners sought a writ of certiorari and prohibition against the tax authorities to quash orders dated April 30, 1965, and notice dated February 22, 1964. The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes rejected the petitioners' revision petition against the Assistant Commissioner's order determining tax liability. The petitioners contended that the Commercial Tax Officer lacked jurisdiction to revise the earlier order absolving them of liability. They argued violations of rules 79 and 81 regarding notice requirements and delegation of powers. The petitioners also disputed the Assistant Commissioner's authority to assess under section 4(2) of the Act.

The petitioners further claimed that the order dated February 13, 1964, remained unchallenged and effective. They relied on legal precedents to argue that subsequent orders did not override the original order. The court distinguished cases regarding appellate orders and departmental proceedings, emphasizing that the order in question was not appealed against. The court held that the petitioners could not challenge the orders passed in subsequent stages as they did not impeach the original order effectively.

Regarding the lack of delegation of powers, the court noted that it was not a ground raised in the petition and therefore not open for argument. The court rejected the contention of a violation of Article 265 of the Constitution, stating that the assessment was conducted within statutory provisions. The court emphasized that applications under Article 226 should address legitimate grievances, and in this case, the petitioners were attempting to reopen settled matters in a circuitous manner. Consequently, the court dismissed the application, discharged the Rule, and ordered the petitioners to pay costs to the respondents.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the application, emphasizing that the petitioners failed to establish a legitimate basis for challenging the tax authorities' orders. The court upheld the validity of the assessment process conducted under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act and rejected the petitioners' contentions regarding jurisdiction, notice requirements, and delegation of powers.