9911796707
TMI Blog1956 (4) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee was assessed by the Sales Tax Officer, Muzaffar- pur, for the year 1948-49. The assessment order dated 31st March, 1951, is enclosed (Exhibit A). 3.. The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of the Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. The appeal petition is enclosed (Exhibit B). The Additional Commissioner of the Tirhut Division who heard the appeal, modified the orders of assessment. His order, dated 19th November, 1951, is enclosed (Exhibit C). 4.. The State of Bihar then came up in revision before the Board of Revenue, Bihar. The revision petition before the Board is enclosed (Exhibit D). The Board, after hearing the parties, rejected the petition with certain observations for the reasons explained in its judgment dated 29 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pinion of the High Court under section 25 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947: "(1) Whether the assessee is entitled, upon the facts and circum- stances of the case to a deduction of 30% over gross turnover under rule 16 of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules with respect to articles supplied to several contractors when the assessee himself is not a contractor executing a 'contract' within the meaning of section 2(b) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947? and (2) Whether the assessee is entitled upon the facts and circum- stances of the case to a deduction of Rs. 1,20,492-11-0 on account of sales transacted between the period 1st of July, 1947, to 30th September, 1948, in execution of contracts entered into prior to 1st of July, 1947, but not prior to 1st of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssion put forward by Mr. Untwalia is that only the dealer or the Commissioner is competent to make an applica- tion to the Board of Revenue under section 25(1), and in case the Board refused to make a reference only the dealer or the Commissioner may apply to the High Court against such refusal. Counsel submitted that the Commissioner of Sales Tax did not make an application to the High Court under section 25(2) in this case and, therefore, the reference made by the Board of Revenue is incompetent and the High Court is not bound to answer the questions of law upon which the Board of Revenue has stated a case. In our opinion the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Untwalia is well-founded and must prevail. It is neces- sary in this connectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ignature of the Registrar, and the Board shall dis- pose of the case accordingly." The submission put forward by the learned Government Advocate is that the Commissioner of Sales Tax was only acting on behalf of the State of Bihar and it is only a matter of procedural irregularity if the State of Bihar made the application instead of the Commissioner of Sales Tax. Counsel submitted that it was a case of misdescription of the party making the application, and such misdescription would not affect the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the application under section 25(3) or to call for a reference from the Board of Revenue. We are unable to accept this argument as right. The jurisdiction of the High Court under section 25 is a specia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, be well-advised to require, before they seek to entertain any question under section 66 of the Income-tax Act, that the preliminary requirements of the section are strictly complied with. The stringency of these requirements is clearly deliberate. It is the intention of the enactment that the High Court is not to be flooded with such applications. The object is salutary and in their Lordships' judgment the High Court will be well-advised, before they entertain any question under the section, always to see that the preliminary statutory conditions have been fully observed." That is also the principle laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Doma Sao Kishun Lal v. State of Bihar(1). This principle has been affirmed in a more recent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s true that under the newly framed rule of the High Court, namely, (1) [1952] 3 S.T.C. 167; A.I.R. 1952 Pat. 357. (2) [1953] 4 S.T.C. 252. (3) [1953] 4 S.T.C. 83; A.I.R. 1953 Pat. 249. (4) [1956] 7 S.T.C. 320; A.I.R. 1956 Pat. 47. (5) [1953] 24 I.T.R. 613; A.I.R. 1954 Cal. 575. rule 5 of Chapter XII(c), an application under section 25(2)(b) is placed for admission before a Bench after service of notice is effected on the opposite party. But that rule was not in existence when the present application was made by the State of Bihar under section 25(2)(b) before the High Court on the 13th of November, 1953. That is the reason why no notice was given to the opposite party and no hearing was given to the opposite party at the time when the Bench ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
