1996 (8) TMI 482 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the constitutionality of specific sections and rules under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. Imposition of penalty on a private limited company for alleged non-compliance with declaration form requirements.

Analysis:

1. Constitutionality Challenge: The petitioners in this case sought a declaration that certain sections (29-A, 29-A(13), 29-B, 29-C) and rules (56-A, 56-B, 56-C, 56-D, 56-E) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, along with form XXV-A, were ultra vires to the Constitution of India. The challenge was based on the orders passed by the respondents and a demand notice issued to the petitioners. The High Court noted that similar provisions under the U.P. Sales Tax Act had been upheld by the Supreme Court previously. Citing the decision in Sodhi Transport Co. v. State of U.P., the Court held that the provisions in question were valid, relying on precedent set in Bhoruka Roadlines Pvt. Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer. Consequently, the challenge to the validity of the provisions was dismissed.

2. Penalty Imposition: The penalty in question was imposed on a private limited company for an alleged error in a declaration form submitted under the Sales Tax Rules. The company, engaged in a contract for industrial water supply, had mistakenly provided the sales tax number of Gauhati instead of M.P. in the declaration form. Despite arguments by the petitioners' counsel, the taxing authority upheld the penalty, which was subsequently affirmed by the revisional authority. The Court declined to delve into the factual aspect of the case, stating it was not inclined to examine such matters under extraordinary jurisdiction. Consequently, the writ petition challenging the penalty imposition was dismissed, with no costs awarded to either party. Any security amount deposited by the petitioners was ordered to be refunded.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the validity of the challenged provisions under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, based on previous judicial decisions. The imposition of the penalty on the private limited company was upheld, emphasizing that factual determinations by the taxing authorities were not subject to review under extraordinary jurisdiction. The petition was ultimately dismissed, with no costs imposed on either party and a directive for the refund of any security amount deposited by the petitioners.