TMI Blog1960 (2) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner, Messrs. Venkateswara Oil Mills, Walker Town, Secunderabad, which deals in groundnuts and groundnut oil, was assessed to sales tax on its total turnover in the year 1953-54. Rebate was claimed by him in regard to oil which was manufactured out of groundnuts purchased by him and on which sales tax was paid at the purchase point, on the ground that such turnover was not eligible to tax. This turnover amounted to Rs. 2,21,010-8-6. The assessing authority rejected this claim, presumably, on the ground that there is no provision in the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act (XIV of 1950) under which such relief could be claimed. Aggrieved by the order of the Sales Tax Officer, the assessee took the matter in appeal to the Deputy Commissioner of C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore the Tribunal, it was urged that, acting on that opinion, the assessee refrained from collecting the tax from the consumers and that, therefore, the Department was estopped from enforcing the tax liability of the assessee. This submission was rejected by the Tribunal in the view that the Deputy Commissioner acted without authority in directing such exemption and consequently there was no estoppel against the provisions of the statute. It is to revise this order of the Tribunal that the present revision has been filed. We are now called upon to decide as to the effect of this letter upon the right of the Department to collect sales tax on commodities which are, admittedly, not exempt from payment of tax either under the statute itself or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erived under item 54 of List II in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. This legislative measure was enacted with the object of providing additional source of revenue to the State. That being so, a subordinate department cannot do anything which will result in detriment to public treasury. The subordinate officials of Government cannot release a subject from an obligation to pay such a tax. The statue imposes a duty of a positive kind on a dealer to pay tax on his turnover. He cannot escape liability to pay that tax by setting up a release from that obligation by an officer of Government as the order having that effect is null and void. In this connection, we may cite the judgment of the Privy Council in Maritime Electric Co. v. Dairie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Privy Council. After reviewing elaborately the case law on the subject, their Lordships inter alia observed as follows: ".......where as here the statute imposes a duty of a positive kind, not avoidable by the performance of any formality, for the doing of the very act which the plaintiff seeks to do, it is not open to the defendant to set up an estoppel to prevent it. This conclusion must follow from the circumstances that an estoppel is only a rule of evidence which under certain special circumstances can be invoked by a party to an action; it cannot therefore avail in such a case to release the plaintiff from an obligation to obey such a statute, nor can it enable the defendant to escape from a statutory obligation of such a kind o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... effect. He remarked: "Whatever the principle may be (referring to a contention as regards approbation and reprobation), it appears to me that it does not apply to this case, for it seems to me well established that it is impossible in law for a person to allege any kind of principle which precludes him from alleging the invalidity of that which the statute has, on grounds of general public policy, enacted shall be invalid." Following the Privy Council ruling in Maritime Electric Co. v. DairiesA.I.R. 1937 P.C. 114., a Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Hindustan Motors Ltd. v. Union of IndiaA.I.R. 1954 Cal. 151., held that there could be no estoppel against the Sea Customs Act, 1878, in bar of the claim of the customs authorities. Similar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , was put forward for the first time only before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. As we have already pointed out, before the Sales Tax Officer this point was not raised. Before the Deputy Commissioner, it was merely urged that (sic) relief mentioned above. It was not even alleged before the Deputy Commissioner that it was because of this opinion the petitioner did not collect sales tax on the oil sold by him. It was only before the Tribunal that this plea was put forward for the first time. It was not shown that the assessee had in fact acted to his detriment on the basis of this letter. The decision of a Bench of this Court in China Sambamurty v. Additional Income-tax Officer, Vizag(1958) 2 An. W.R. 515., called in aid by Sri Ranganathach ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
