1965 (1) TMI 58 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment orders for the years 1954-55 and 1955-56 based on best judgment basis. Refund of sales tax collected from constituents. Interpretation and application of a Government Order dated 13th June, 1958. Jurisdiction of the Court to direct Sales Tax Authorities to comply with the Government Order.

Analysis:
The petitioners sought writs of certiorari to challenge the assessment orders made by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer for the years 1954-55 and 1955-56, which were later revised by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner based on the account books returned by Sales Tax Authorities of Bombay. The petitioners refunded sales tax to their constituents post the Supreme Court's decision in the Bengal Immunity case. The State of Madras issued a Government Order directing the treatment of claims for refund of sales tax collected. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal did not accept the evidence provided by the petitioners regarding the refund. The petitioners contended that their case fell within the purview of the Government Order and should not be assessed to tax.

The Court examined whether it could direct Sales Tax Authorities to comply with the Government Order. The Sales Tax Laws Validation Ordinance, 1956 validated sales tax collections up to 6th September, 1955. The Government Order aimed to provide relief to dealers who did not collect or refunded sales tax on inter-State transactions. The Court noted that the Board did not consider the merits of the petitioners' claim and did not ask for proof of compliance with the Government Order. The Court held that the assessing authorities failed to perform their duty by not scrutinizing the evidence presented by the petitioners. The Court concluded that the orders of the Board needed to be quashed, directing a reassessment by the appropriate authority based on the evidence provided by the petitioners.

In a previous case, the Court held that when a public authority is directed by a superior authority to perform a specific act, the refusal to perform that act can be corrected through the writ jurisdiction of the Court. The Court applied this principle to the present case, emphasizing the duty of assessing authorities to follow lawful directions issued by the government. The Court found that the assessing authorities failed to fulfill their duty in this case, leading to the quashing of the Board's orders and a direction for reassessment based on the evidence provided by the petitioners.

Conclusion:
The Court allowed the petition, quashed the Board's orders, and directed a reassessment by the appropriate authority in light of the evidence presented by the petitioners. No costs were awarded in this matter.