1973 (2) TMI 127 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Issuance of declaration forms under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.
2. Validity of rule 27AA of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941.
3. Alleged excessive delegation in section 26 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.
4. Seizure and retention of books of account under section 14(3) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.
5. Compliance with procedural requirements for a writ of mandamus.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Issuance of Declaration Forms:
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, sought the issuance of declaration forms necessary for claiming deductions on sales. The petitioner argued that under section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Act and rule 27AA of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, it was incumbent upon the respondents to issue these forms unless misuse was found. The petitioner contended that the Commercial Tax Officer had refused to furnish the forms despite multiple applications.

The court examined section 5 and its subsections, emphasizing that declaration forms must be furnished by the registered purchaser when the tax payable is assessed. Rule 27AA outlines the procedure for obtaining these forms, requiring the applicant to satisfy the Commercial Tax Officer about the bona fide use of previously issued forms. The court found no inconsistency between the rules and section 5 of the Act, rejecting the petitioner's claim of ultra vires.

2. Validity of Rule 27AA:
The petitioner challenged rule 27AA as ultra vires section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Act and the Constitution, arguing it involved excessive delegation. The court noted that rule 27AA provides a detailed procedure for issuing declaration forms, including conditions under which applications may be rejected. The court held that the rule is consistent with section 5 and not ultra vires, as it includes necessary safeguards against misuse of forms.

3. Alleged Excessive Delegation in Section 26:
The petitioner argued that section 26 of the Act, which empowers the State Government to make rules, was unconstitutional due to excessive delegation. The court referred to the detailed guidelines and principles laid down in section 26 for rule-making. Citing the Supreme Court's observation in Pt. Banarsi Das Bhanot v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the court held that it is permissible for the Legislature to delegate details to the executive in complex administrative matters. Therefore, section 26 and the rules framed under it were not ultra vires the Constitution.

4. Seizure and Retention of Books of Account:
The petitioner contended that the seizure of its books of account by respondent No. 4 was unlawful as there was no reasonable suspicion of tax evasion, a condition precedent under section 14(3) of the Act. The court found no allegation or prima facie proof that the Commissioner suspected the petitioner of attempting to evade tax. Thus, the conditions for seizure did not exist, making the seizure and retention of books unlawful.

5. Compliance with Procedural Requirements for a Writ of Mandamus:
The court highlighted rule 19 of the High Court Rules, which mandates that petitions for a writ of mandamus must include a statement of demand for justice. The petitioner failed to provide particulars of such demand, only making a bald statement. The court noted that a letter dated 27th September 1972, relied upon by the petitioner, was addressed to the Assistant Commissioner and not to the respondents in question. Consequently, the court concluded that there was no proper demand for justice, leading to the dismissal of the application.

Conclusion:
The application was dismissed, and the rule nisi was discharged. The court directed that each party bear its own costs, and all interim orders were vacated. The court's decision was based on the lack of procedural compliance and the absence of grounds to challenge the validity of the rules and the seizure of books.

← Previous Next →