1982 (3) TMI 233 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Constitutional validity of section 4-B of the Act
2. Whether the petitioner is a "dealer" as defined in section 2(d) of the Act
3. Jurisdiction of respondent No. 3 to levy and collect tax
4. Failure of the petitioner to avail remedies of appeals under the Act

Detailed Analysis:
1. The constitutional validity of section 4-B of the Act was challenged in the case, but both parties agreed that it was valid. The section allowed for the levy of tax on goods exported, and it was found that the tax charged on the dealer for the exported goods was legal based on the provisions of the Act. The tax was to be paid at the station of despatch or any other station before the goods left the State of Haryana. The tax was charged based on the amended section 4-B, which was found to be legally sound.

2. The petitioner argued that they were not a "dealer" as defined in section 2(d) of the Act and therefore should not be assessed or taxed under section 4-B. However, the court found that the question of whether the petitioner was a dealer was a matter of fact and could not be determined in writ proceedings. The respondents asserted that the petitioner was indeed a dealer as per the Act, and since the petitioner did not counter this assertion, the court concluded that the petitioner was a dealer.

3. Regarding the jurisdiction of respondent No. 3 to levy and collect tax, it was argued that the respondent was not competent to do so. However, the reply filed stated that respondent No. 3 was competent to realize the tax unpaid by the petitioner. The tax was charged on the purchase of goods that were exported from the State of Haryana, and it was found that the tax was payable only if the goods were exported and not if they were sold within the state or in interstate trade.

4. The petitioner failed to avail the remedies of appeals provided under the Act, as they did not file an appeal despite the availability of such a remedy. The court cited a previous judgment emphasizing the importance of utilizing the statutory appeal mechanisms before resorting to extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Given the minor amount involved and the availability of legal remedies, the court dismissed the petition, stating that no case was made out for invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.