1964 (2) TMI 79 - SC - Indian Laws

Decline to entertain the application to raise questions other than those raised by the certificate granted by the High Court because the questions sought to be raised are questions of fact which were not canvassed at the appropriate stage before the taxing authorities and the machinery provided under the Act for determination of questions relating to liability to tax is attempted to be bypassed. The constitutional question on which certificate was granted does not need consideration in any detail. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legislative competence of the Provincial Legislature regarding the definition of "sale" in Section 2(12) of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947.
2. Validity of the assessment orders and the factual determination of whether the goods were within the Province of Assam at the time of the contracts of sale.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legislative Competence of the Provincial Legislature:
The appellants contended that the Explanation to Section 2(12) of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947, was ultra vires the Assam Legislature under the Government of India Act, 1935. They argued that the tax could not be levied on sales merely because the goods were in Assam at the time of the contracts, irrespective of where the contracts were made. The High Court held that the Explanation to Section 2(12) was not ultra vires the authority of the Provincial Legislature for the period prior to the Constitution. The Supreme Court concurred, noting that the Legislature had not overstepped its authority. The Court cited *The Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd. v. The State of Bihar*, affirming that the legislative attempt to locate the sites of sale for the purpose of levying sales tax by fixing upon the actual situation of the goods within the Province at the date of the contract was within its competence.

2. Validity of the Assessment Orders and Factual Determination:
The appellants challenged the factual determination by the taxing authorities that the goods were within Assam at the time of the contracts of sale. The Superintendent of Taxes made "best judgment assessments" under Section 17(4) of the Act due to the appellants' failure to produce their books of account. The Assistant Commissioner of Taxes dismissed the appeals, and the Commissioner of Taxes upheld the assessments, noting that the contracts were made between March and September, with deliveries after July, indicating the goods were in Assam at the time of the contracts. The High Court declined to reappraise the evidence, stating that the findings of the Commissioner were not "altogether unjustified."

The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and not intended to serve as an alternative remedy for statutory relief. The appellants bypassed the statutory procedure by not moving the Commissioner to refer a case to the High Court under Section 32 of the Act. The Supreme Court reiterated that the High Court cannot act as an appellate authority over the decision of the Commissioner on questions of fact or law. The appellants' failure to present their contentions at the appropriate stages before the taxing authorities precluded them from raising those issues before the High Court or the Supreme Court.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court's decision. The Court upheld the legislative competence of the Assam Legislature to define "sale" under Section 2(12) of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947, and validated the factual determinations made by the taxing authorities regarding the presence of goods in Assam at the time of the contracts of sale. The appeals were dismissed with costs, and the constitutional question on which the certificate was granted was deemed unnecessary for detailed consideration.