9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (7) TMI 292X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the U.P. Sales of Motor Spirit, Diesel Oil and Alcohol Taxation Act, 1939. In the present case the respondent No. 2 seeks to realise an amount of Rs. 9,264.80 from the petitioner as purchase tax. A notice to this effect was given to the petitioner. The tax pertained to purchase of alcohol for the period 1st November, 1975, to 20th April, 1976. The petitioner's case was that the notice demanding the tax was bad in law and no amount was due from the petitioner, who was a seller and not the purchaser of alcohol. The petitioner's case further was that no purchase tax was realised by it from the purchaser. The petitioner made a representation to respondent No. 2 but it was of no avail. The respondent No. 2 by his order dated 18th November, 197 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as published in the Gazette the very next day. The relevant portions of amended section 3(1)(a), (b) and (c) are quoted below: "Section 3(1)(a): There shall be levied on the first sale of motor spirit in the State,................and such tax shall be payable to the State Government in the prescribed manner by the dealer effecting such sale; (b) There shall be levied on the first sale of diesel oil in the State,..........and such tax shall be payable to the State Government in the prescribed manner by the dealer effecting such sale; (c) There shall be levied at the point of first purchase of alcohol in the State a 'tax' at the rate of 40 paise per litre for the first million litres and at the rate of 20 paise per litre for the remai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed reads: "The tax on the purchase of alcohol shall be payable by the purchaser or the seller on his behalf.............." We do not find any merits in this contention. The provisions of the Act, viz., section 3(1)(c) squarely place the liability on the purchaser and not on the seller. The said provision also speaks of the rules prescribed for payment unto the Government the said tax. The rule quoted above nowhere puts the liability on the seller. This could not be done either by the Rules. However, the seller is empowered under the rule to deposit the said tax on behalf of the purchaser. This does not mean that the liability is transferred on the seller. The liability to pay the tax, in our opinion, remains on the purchaser. But as n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be granted to the petitioner in exercise of the power of the Court under article 226 of the Constitution. This contention has to be repelled. Alternative remedy is no bar to the grant of relief under article 226. It may affect the exercise of discretion in the grant of relief. In the present case no such plea was taken by the respondent in the past seven years although they had notice of the petition. The plea has been taken orally at the stage of arguments. Further, plea of an alternative relief by way of an appeal was not even prescribed when the notice was served or the direction for making the deposit was given, i.e. 18th November, 1976. The Act did not prescribe the authority to whom the appeal could be filed. Rule 20 prescribed tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
