Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1962 (3) TMI 59

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....   The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMA AIYAR, J.-The sole point for determination in this appeal, which is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay, is whether the appellant is not liable to pay tax under the provisions of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 (Act 21 of 1947), on the ground alleged that it had not been validly registered as a dealer under section 8 of the Act. The facts bearing on this contention are that the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", received the assent of the Governor-General on May 23, 1947, and came into force on June 1, 1947. On May 27, 1947, a notification No. 601 was issued by the Provincial Government pu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd so, on December 18, 1951, it instituted the suit out of which the present appeal arises claiming a refund of Rs. 6,650-11-9 being the amount paid for sales tax during the period June 1, 1947, to June 30, 1951, and a sum of Rs. 2,000 as damages, in all Rs. 8,650-11-9. Though a number of grounds were put forward in support of the claim, it is necessary now to deal with only one of them, and that is that the Sales Tax Officer who issued the registration certificate to the appellant on July 21, 1947, was not authorised to do so under the Act and that in consequence all the assessments and recoveries of tax were illegal and void. The basis for this contention is that section 3(1) of the Act confers authority on the State Government to appoint .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed on August 15, 1947, the irregularity, if any, in the issue of registration certificate on July 21, 1947, had been cured. He also further held that the liability of the appellant to pay sales tax was not affected by the invalidity of the registration under section 8. In the result he dismissed the suit with costs. Against this decision appellant preferred an appeal to the High Court of Nagpur and that was heard by a Bench of the Bombay High Court to which it stood transferred under the States Reorganisation Act. The learned Judges held that the question whether the registration of the appellant as dealer under section 8 of the Act was valid or not did not call for a decision as even if it was invalid that did not affect its liability to b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nferred by section 11(1) but the Act does not put him in a better position than a dealer who has got himself registered under section 8(1) and absolve him from his liability to pay tax under section 4. The position of the dealer who has obtained a certificate of registration which turns out to be invalid cannot on principle be distinguished from that of one who has failed to obtain a certificate.   It was argued for the appellant that it would make a difference in the procedure prescribed for making assessment whether a dealer was registered or not. It was said that under section 10(1) while every registered dealer is under an obligation to make returns for the purposes of assessment, a dealer who is not registered becomes liable to s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and is open to collateral attack, an order passed by an authority which has jurisdiction over the matter, but has assumed it otherwise than in the mode prescribed by law, is not a nullity. It may be liable to be questioned in those very proceedings, but subject to that it is good, and not open to collateral attack. Therefore even if the proceedings for assessment were taken against a non-registered dealer without the issue of a notice under section 10(1) that would be a mere irregularity in the assumption of jurisdiction and the orders of assessment passed in those proceedings cannot be held to be without jurisdiction and no suit will lie for impeaching them on the ground that section 10(1) had not been followed. This must a fortiori be so .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates