9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2004 (1) TMI 645 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax
Issues: Challenge to notice under section 25-A of the Act and interpretation of the term "woman" in section 17(4)(ii)
In this case, the petitioner, a partnership firm engaged in catering business with two women partners, challenged a notice issued under section 25-A of the Act and sought a declaration that the term "woman" in section 17(4)(ii) includes "women" as well. The Government had provided benefits to women entrepreneurs under this section, and the petitioner had applied for and received certain facilities under the amended section. However, a notice was issued to the petitioner due to errors in the application. The petitioner contended that the term "woman" should be interpreted to include "women" as well. The court analyzed section 17(4) which provides for a composition available to certain dealers, specifically women engaged in catering food and drinks. The court noted that the provision was meant for a woman dealer, not multiple women partners as in the petitioner's case. The court referred to a Supreme Court judgment to support the view that special provisions for women do not violate constitutional principles. The court rejected the challenge to section 17(4)(ii) and upheld the notice issued under section 25-A. Regarding the interpretation of the term "woman" in the provision, the court held that it was a policy decision of the Government to provide benefits to a woman dealer specifically. The court declined to interfere with the policy decision and rejected the argument that "woman" should be read to include "women." The court emphasized that it was not for the court to question the policy decisions of the Government. The court allowed the petitioner to file a reply to the notice within a specified period and directed the respondents to consider the objections and pass orders accordingly. In conclusion, the court dismissed the challenge to the notice issued under section 25-A and upheld the distinction between a "woman" dealer and "women" dealers in the provision. The court emphasized the policy decision of the Government in providing benefits to women entrepreneurs and declined to interpret the term "woman" broadly to include multiple women partners in a firm.
|
