1981 (12) TMI 155 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the first respondent to resort to the process under Central Act 1 of 1890 for collecting amounts due to sales tax authorities.
2. Validity of the levy of penalty under section 36(3) of the Act as confiscatory and violative of article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the first respondent to use the process under Central Act 1 of 1890 for collecting sales tax dues from the State of Bombay. The court referred to a similar case in Kerala and Karnataka where it was held that Central Act 1 of 1890 applies nationwide, allowing recovery of public demands across districts. The court rejected the contention that the first respondent lacked jurisdiction based on this precedent, stating that the Collector of any district in the country can enforce recovery under this Act. Therefore, the first contention of the petitioner was dismissed.

2. The petitioner also contested the levy of penalties under section 36(3) of the Act as confiscatory and violative of constitutional rights. The petitioner had appealed the penalty orders to the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Appeals, Bombay, but the appellate orders went against him. The court noted a previous decision where it was established that the court had jurisdiction to intervene under article 226(PA) of the Constitution, but in this case, the petitioner had not challenged the orders of the Bombay sales tax authorities in time. The court emphasized that the petitioner had allowed the orders to go unchallenged for a significant period and had not approached the courts in Bombay to contest the orders. As a result, the court found it inappropriate to entertain the petitioner's grievance at that stage, especially when measures for recovery were already in progress. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner should seek redress in the courts at Bombay and declined to issue the writ sought by the petitioner.