9911796707
TMI Blog1959 (9) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fixed rate of commission. The case of the petitioners is that on the 30th May, 1951, the Superintendent of Sales Tax, Dhanbad, made an assessment of sales tax upon the petitioners for the year 1950-51 on an estimated turnover of Rs. 1,17,022. The petitioners took the matter in appeal to the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, but the appeal was dismissed on the 30th November, 1954. The petitioners then filed a revision application to the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under section 24(4) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, but the application was rejected. The petitioners then applied to the Board of Revenue, but their application was dismissed, and the Board of Revenue confirmed the assessment of sales tax with regard to the year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Bihar[1959] 10 S.T.C. 483; (1959) B.L.J.R. 343. It was pointed out in that case that if the party has an effective remedy provided in the machinery of the Bihar Sales Tax Act and if he does not avail himself of the statutory remedy within the time granted, he cannot be permitted to attain his object by a method of his own choosing, namely, by an application under Article 226 of the Constitution and he is not entitled to the grant of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution. In our opinion, the principle of this case applies to the present case and the petitioners are not, therefore, entitled to the grant of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution. We are further of opinion that even upon merits the petitioners are not entitled t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue in its order dated the 29th November, 1957, that the "lack of bona fides of the petitioner is shown by the fact that the petitioner failed to produce his accounts before the assessing officer and failed to give any satisfactory explanation as to why no accounts were maintained." In the revisional order dated the 1st October, 1956, the Board of Revenue has dealt with the case of the petitioners for the year 1950-51 as follows: "It will be convenient to dispose of the assessment for the year 1950-51 in respect of which liability was admitted. The assessing officer gave plausible reasons for the estimate of the business and the quantum has been considered in the light of the arguments put forward by the assessee before the lower courts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent of Sales Tax or before the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax or before the Board of Revenue. As we have already said, the question raised by the petitioners for the first time in the High Court is a question of fact which was not raised before the Sales Tax Authorities and which was not investigated by them. It is impossible, therefore, for us to entertain this question for the first time in the High Court and determine it. For this reason also we hold that there is no merit in this writ application and the petitioners have not made out a case for grant of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution. For these reasons we hold that this application fails and must be dismissed with costs. Hearing fee Rs. 200.
Petition dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
