9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (3) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch the question has arisen may be narrated thus: The petitioner-firm, it is stated, was entitled to exemption from payment of sales tax in whole under section 5 of the General Sales Tax Act, 1962, as the firm dealt in locally purchased goods. That the firm was entitled to an exemption licence under section 5 of the Act is not disputed. An exemption licence in fact was issued in favour of the petitioner for the accounting year 1972-73. Section 5 of the Act provides that exemption licence can be issued subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be prescribed, including conditions as to licence and licence fees. Rule 4 of the Rules framed under the General Sales Tax Act, 1962, as in force on the date of the issuance of the exemption l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r for the accounting year 1973-74 so long as the petitioner did not pay Rs. 6.25 in addition to a fee of Rs. 30 payable for the accounting year 1973-74. It is the refusal on the part of respondent No. 2 to renew the licence for the accounting year 1973-74 without payment of the additional sum of Rs. 6.25 being the amount calculated at the rate of Rs. 30 per year for the period commencing from 1st November, 1972, to 31st March, 1973, which has given rise to the present petition. Mr. Subhash Dutt, the counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the amendment in rule 4 by means of Notification No. S.R.O. 772 dated 1st November, 1972, applies prospectively and not retrospectively and that the petitioner could not be forced to pay the additional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate of amendment in the rule would not at all fall within the purview of this rule. On 10th April, 1972, when the exemption licence under section 5 of the Act was issued in favour of the petitioner the requisite licence fee was only Rs. 15 and it was on payment of this amount that a licence could be obtained. The licence, therefore, held by the petitioner was obtained on payment of Rs. 15 as licence fee consistently with the rule as it stood before the amendment. At any time after 1st November, 1972, and before 31st March, 1973, the petitioner was not required to obtain a fresh licence for the whole or any part of the accounting year ending with 31st March, 1973. In my opinion, therefore, the construction placed by Mr. Anil Dev Singh on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ace of the record. According to him, the other opinion, which in fact was held by respondent No. 1 in regard to the scope of rule 4 of the Rules, cannot be said to be wholly baseless. Mr. Singh argued that the powers of this court under section 226 of the Indian Constitution are exercisable only in cases in which a subordinate authority has been guilty of an error apparent on the face of the record. This argument also, in my opinion, should not carry any weight. The wording of the rule reproduced hereinabove does not admit of any interpretation other than the one I have placed on it. The interpretation on the amended rule 4 placed by respondent No. 1 appears to be clearly and unmistakably erroneous. There was no room at all for respondent N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
