9911796707
TMI Blog1952 (7) TMI 8X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Sales Tax Officer, Sambalpur, by his order dated 16th December, 1949, assessed the petitioners to pay a tax of Rs. 3,215-10-0. 3.. The Sales Tax Officer's order of assessment solely relied upon the letter of the Collector of Commercial Taxes, Orissa, No. 3264 C.T./328 C.T. of 48, dated the 22nd September, 1948. There being a reference to the letter of the Collector of Commercial Taxes in the body of the order itself, we allowed the production of the said letter and, in order to understand the contents of the said letter, we allowed also the production of the letter written to the Collector by the Assistant Mana- ger of the petitioners, the letter being dated 20th September, 1948. The letter of the Collector runs thus: "Please refer to your letter No. A/364 dated 20th September, 1948. The export of bamboos by you from Sambalpur and other districts of Orissa to the Titaghar Paper Mills Co., and the Bengal Paper Mills Co., in Bengal constitutes a "sale" in Orissa and as such attracts liability to sales tax. The Orissa Sales Tax Act does not exempt such exports from payment of sales tax. The fact that you have been registered in West Bengal does not affect the question in any way." ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om refusal is meant, it cannot be taken to be a refusal as contemplated under Section 24. We, therefore, think that the limitation will start from the date of communication of the order of refusal and not from the date of signing of it. We are supported in our view by a decision of the Madras High Court, reported in Muthiah Chettiar v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras(1). The Head Note runs as follows: "If a person is given a right to resort to a remedy to get rid of an adverse order within a prescribed time, limitation should not be com- puted from a date earlier than that on which the party aggrieved actually knew of the order or had an opportunity of knowing the order and, there- fore, must be presumed to have had knowledge of the order." Chief Justice Rajamannar in his judgment observes: "The only question on the merits which falls for decision is whether the one year has to be computed from the date when the order was signed by the Income-tax Officer, or the date when it was communicated to the petitioner, or the date, if there be any, on which the petitioner had the opportunity of coming to know of the order. The learned advocate for the petitioner relied on a catena of de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te on 4th September, 1951. These facts transpire from paragraphs 4, 6 and 7 of the affidavit. On the above facts, therefore, they are entitled to 22 days as the time requisite for obtaining copies, i.e., from 14th August, 1951, when the limitation commenced upto 4th September, 1951, and there being no laches on their part during these days. The present petition having been filed on 28th September, 1951, they are within time. 10.. A point was taken that they were not entitled to the time the letters from Sambalpur took to reach them. But our attention has been drawn to Rule 61(2) of the Rules under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, which runs as follows: "On receipt of the application the dealer will be informed of the court-fee stamps that will be required under the provisions of sub-rule (3) for the supply of copy. After the necessary court-fee has been paid by the dealer, a certified copy of the order will be prepared and granted to him." This shows the dealer is entitled to be informed of the requisite court-fee and stamp, which means, in the absence of any other provi- sions, he is to be informed by the usual mode of communication, that is, by postal letters. The learned counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f India Act, 1935, running as "Taxes on the sale of goods and on advertisements" is a Provincial subject. The Provincial Legislature is competent to legislate on the subject. But the term "sale" under the Orissa Sales Tax Act cannot be made wider than what it meant under the Government of India Act. We are to take it that the British Parliament used the term "sale" in the sense in which it was used in India, i.e., a completed transaction involving a transference of interest. A mere contract for sale is not a completed transaction. If it meant anything other than or wider than the meaning of the word "sale", appearing in the Government of India Act, to that extent it must be said to be ultra vires. Mere contract for sale, therefore, within the State of Orissa cannot be taxable under the Orissa Sales Tax Act. We are supported in our view by a Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in Budh Prakash Jai Prakash v. Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur, and Others(1). Sapru, J., observes: "The point which I am stressing is that there is, as is evident from sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 4 of the Indian Sale of Goods Act, a distinction between an agreement to sell and a sale and wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
