9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 868X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conist, under the A.P. Tax on Luxuries in Hotels and Lodging Houses Act, 1987 (hereinafter called, "Luxury Tax Act"), from August, 1996. The Luxury Tax Act was amended on August 1, 1996 and its scope was enlarged to include levy of luxury tax on supply of tobacco and tobacco products. The petitioner filed W.P. No. 16909 of 1996 before this court challenging the vires of the said Act. Though the writ petition was admitted, no interim order was granted in the petitioner's favour pending disposal of the writ petition. The second respondent passed order dated March 31, 1998 for the assessment year 1996-97, under the Luxury Tax Act, allowing the exemptions claimed by the petitioner. The challenge to the validity of the Luxury Tax Act was, ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iated under section 17 of the APGST Act without any further notice or time. Petitioner was also informed that, in addition to the above, action would also be initiated for levy of interest under section 16(3) of the APGST Act. As the proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner dated July 10, 2000, and the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dated November 20, 2006, had not been challenged, the petitioner filed W.P.M.P. No. 9723 of 2009 seeking amendment of the prayer in W.P. No. 6046 of 2009 and to declare the aforesaid two proceedings ab-initio void, non est in law and consequently inoperative. In his counter-affidavit, the second respondent submits that the Supreme Court had passed an interim order on April 1, 1999 directing the dealer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itio void and that the impugned notice founded upon such a void order would be equally non est in law. Learned counsel would rely on Behram Khurshid Pesikaka v. State of Bombay AIR 1955 SC 123 and Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1959 SC 648. Sri K. Raji Reddy, learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes, would, however, contend that the order in revision passed by the Deputy Commissioner had attained finality on the appeal preferred thereagainst being dismissed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, that the petitioner had not challenged the validity of the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal before this court prior to the filing of the amendment petition in the present writ petition and, as the order in revision ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the necessary proceedings are taken at law to establish the cause of invalidity, and to get it quashed or otherwise upset, it will remain as effective for its ostensible purpose as the most impeccable of orders. This is equally true even where the brand of invalidity is plainly visible for there also the order can effectively be resisted in law only by obtaining the decision of the court (Wade and Forsyth: Administrative Law, Seventh Edn., at pages 341-342). Smith v. East Elloe Rural District Council [1956] AC 736. No individual or authority can ignore the order assuming authority upon itself to decide that the order is coram non judice. A quasi-judicial order, not invalid on its face, must be given effect to entailing all consequences, ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .P. No. 9723 of 2009 is, accordingly, allowed. The Constitution bench of the Supreme Court, in Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. v. State of U.P. [2005] 139 STC 537; [2005] 2 SCC 515, held that entry 62 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, i.e., "taxes on entertainments, amusements, betting and gambling", did not permit levy of tax on goods or articles, that the word "luxuries" in the entry referred to activities of indulgence, enjoyment or pleasure and, inasmuch as none of the impugned statutes had sought to tax any activity and, admittedly, sought to tax goods described as luxury goods, they must be declared to be legislatively incompetent. Following the principles laid down in Somaiya Organics (India) Ltd. v. State of Uttar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 139 STC 537; [2005] 2 SCC 515, must be held as never to have possessed any legal force, the revisional order passed by the Deputy Commissioner thereunder must also be, and is, declared non-est and a nullity. Consequent upon such a declaration it matters little that the appeal, preferred against the revisional order, before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal has been dismissed for default. Since the very revisional order of the Deputy Commissioner is a nullity, the impugned notice, calling upon the petitioner to pay luxury tax, pursuant to the said revisional order must also be set aside. The respondents would, however, contend that the revisional order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on July 10, 2000 is prior to the judgment of the Consti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
