1964 (7) TMI 48 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of a single writ petition for quashing multiple assessment orders.
2. Applicability of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.
3. Impact of court fees on the maintainability of petitions under Article 226.
4. Precedents and judicial opinions on filing multiple orders in a single petition.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of a Single Writ Petition for Quashing Multiple Assessment Orders:
The court addressed whether a single writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution can challenge multiple assessment orders for different assessment years and under different taxing statutes. The court concluded that one writ petition cannot be entertained for quashing two assessment orders pertaining to two different assessment years or under two different taxing statutes, even if the assessee and the assessing authority are the same.

2. Applicability of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to Proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution:
The court examined whether the provisions of the CPC, specifically Order II Rule 3, apply to proceedings under Article 226. The court determined that the CPC does not govern proceedings under Article 226, as a High Court exercising jurisdiction under this article cannot be considered a court of civil jurisdiction. The court emphasized that Section 141 of the CPC, which extends the procedure in suits to other proceedings in civil courts, does not apply to Article 226 proceedings.

3. Impact of Court Fees on the Maintainability of Petitions under Article 226:
The court highlighted that a fixed court fee of Rs. 50 is payable on a writ petition under Article 226, regardless of the number of orders challenged. Allowing a single petition to challenge multiple orders would result in a loss of revenue to the state, as separate petitions would require a higher cumulative court fee. The court concluded that it does not have the power to permit practices that would result in a loss of state revenue.

4. Precedents and Judicial Opinions on Filing Multiple Orders in a Single Petition:
The court reviewed various precedents and judicial opinions on the maintainability of petitions challenging multiple orders. It noted that several decisions have held that one petition impugning several orders is not maintainable. The court referred to cases such as Uma Shankar v. Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway, Lucknow, and Revenue Patwaris Union v. State of Punjab, which supported this view. The court also discussed the Supreme Court's decision in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, where a single petition was entertained but without a specific ruling on the maintainability issue. The court concluded that the principle of uniting multiple causes of action in one petition, as permitted by Order II Rule 3 of the CPC, should not be applied to proceedings under Article 226.

Conclusion:
The court's final answer to the referred question was that a single writ petition for quashing multiple assessment orders pertaining to different assessment years or under different taxing statutes is not maintainable. The case was listed before the learned judge with this answer.