1960 (9) TMI 84 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

From the record of this case, we cannot say when the lis commenced, and unless it can be proved conclusively that it was before the amendment of the law, the rule in Hoosein Kasam Dada's case 1953 (2) TMI 35 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA cannot apply. There is no averment that a right of appeal had vested, and has been wrongly taken away - Appeal dismissed.

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the definition of "sale" under the Sales Tax Act.
2. Exemption claim based on goods exported from taxable territories.
3. Requirement of depositing assessed tax for appeal under amended Sales Tax Act.
4. Petition for writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution.
5. Competency of appeal and grounds for re-hearing.
6. Application for certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court under Articles 132 and 133 of the Constitution.
7. Application to urge additional grounds during the hearing.
8. Application of the principle in Hoosein Kasam Dada's case regarding retrospective effect of law on appeals.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appellant contested the interpretation of the definition of "sale" under the Sales Tax Act, arguing that there was only a contract for sale and not a completed sale within taxable territories. The distinction between a contract for sale and a completed sale under the Sale of Goods Act was emphasized. However, the court held that this point was not open for argument as it did not involve an interpretation of the Constitution, which was the limit of the certificate granted for appeal.

2. The appellant claimed exemption on sales of bidis exported from taxable territories before the contract for sale was entered into. The goods were stored in godowns in Uttar Pradesh and delivered against orders by the Central Bank of India. The court noted that the petition for exemption was based on grounds related to the Sales Tax Act and Article 286 of the Constitution, but the High Court dismissed the petition for re-hearing the appeal.

3. The Sales Tax Act was amended, requiring the appellant to deposit the assessed tax as a condition precedent for appeal. The appellant failed to comply with this requirement, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. Subsequently, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed for a writ of mandamus to compel the Commissioner to hear the appeal without the deposit of assessed tax.

4. The High Court disposed of the petition along with others, relying on precedent but overlooking the specific point raised by the appellant. The appellant sought a certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court under Articles 132 and 133 of the Constitution, intending to argue all grounds. However, the certificate was granted under Article 132(1), limiting the appeal to specific matters mentioned in that clause.

5. The court considered the competency of the appeal and the grounds for re-hearing, noting that the original petition did not sufficiently address the dates relevant to the case law cited. The appellant's attempt to introduce new grounds during the hearing was rejected to prevent surprise to the other party.

6. Regarding the application of the principle in Hoosein Kasam Dada's case on the retrospective effect of the law on appeals, the court faced difficulty due to the lack of clarity on when the appeal rights vested in the present case. Without conclusive evidence that the rights vested before the law amendment, the principle could not be applied, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

7. Ultimately, the court concluded that the appeal could not succeed based on the presented arguments and dismissed it with costs, highlighting the importance of clarity and evidence in legal proceedings to support claims and appeals effectively.

← Previous Next →