9911796707
TMI Blog1955 (3) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s therefore contended that the petitioner company is not a dealer within the definition of that term as given in section 2(c) of the said Act. The petitioner was assessed to sales tax in respect of the assess- ment year 1949-50 by an order of the Sales Tax Officer, Banaras, dated 9th March, 1953. The petitioner went up in appeal against that order, and the Judge, Sales Tax (Appeals), Allahabad, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Sales Tax Officer on 4th December, 1953, holding that the petitioner company was not a dealer as defined in the Act. With a view to assessing the petitioner company with tax for the assessment year 1948-49 under section 21 of the Act the said Sales Tax Officer demanded a return from it by a communication dated 6th March, 1952. The petitioner company did not submit a return but wrote to the Sales Tax Officer that it was not liable to taxation as it did not carry on business in this State. No reply was received by the peti- tioner to this letter, but on 1st April, 1952, it received a notice with an order of assessment of the year in question, and also a notice of demand for a sum of Rs. 7,812 as sales tax. On 10th April, 1952, the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Sales Tax Officer in question did not have the power of making the assessment since no declaration had been made by the petitioner company nor had the Commissioner determined any Sales Tax Officer who was to be the assessing authority in respect of the petitioner, as required by clauses (c) and (d) of rule 6 of the Rules framed under the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. It was therefore contended on behalf of the petitioner that the tax sought to be realised from the petitioner company was a tax without authority of law and therefore it infringed its fundamental right of carrying on business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. There was a preliminary objection taken by the learned standing counsel that the petitioner had no right to file this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution since it had failed to avail itself of the remedy of appeal provided by section 9 of the Act. That the petitioner did not go up in appeal against the order of assessment in question is an ad- mitted fact. The explanation offered by the petitioner is that it receiv- ed that reply dated 2nd May, 1952, from the Sales Tax Officer in ques- tion too late to be able to file an appeal (the period of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1953 Punj. 137. under section 2(c) of the Sales Tax Act. The definition is to the follow- ing effect: "'Dealer' means any person or association of persons carrying on the business of buying or selling and supplying goods in the United Provinces, whether for commission, remuneration or otherwise, and includes any firm or Hindu joint family and any society, club or associa- tion which sells or supplies goods to its members; but does not include any department of the Provincial Government or of the Indian Union (hereinafter called the Dominion Government); Explanation.-The agent of a person resident outside the United Provinces who carries on the business of buying or selling or supplying goods in the United Provinces on behalf of such person shall, in respect of such business, be deemed to be a dealer for the purposes of this Act." The above definition has been amended under the U. P. Act VIII of 1954, but as this case relates to an assessment for the year 1948-49 the old definition would be applicable. The question of fact in con- troversy under the affidavit and the counter affidavit filed in the present case is as to whether under the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act pro- per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccord- ing to him the words "in the United Provinces" in the definition of "dealer" applied only to the words "supplying goods" and not to the words "carrying on the business of buying or selling". This inter- pretation of the word "dealer" does not seem to be correct. In the first place, the word "supplying" seems to convey no sense since, as the preamble to the Act shows, the purpose of the enactment is to provide for the levy of a tax on the sale of goods. It was presumably for this reason that this word was deleted under the U.P. Act VIII of 1954. In the next place, if supplying goods in the U.P. were sufficient, the Explanation relating to the agent of a person resident outside U.P. would again become redundant. It follows therefore that the words "in the United Provinces" apply not only to the supplying of goods but also to the carrying on of business of sale. The petitioner company having neither a place of business nor an agent in U.P., it was not a dealer within the definition of that term in the said Act. The second ground taken by the petitioner is equally unassailable. Rule 6 of the Rules framed under the United Provinces Sales Tax Act, 1948, relates to the powers of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
