This numberification was subsequently modified and on November 25, 1958, another numberification was issued unconditionally exempting from sales tax biris both handmade and machine made with effect from July 1, 1958.
The requisite sales tax of Rs.
An application has been filed in this Court for restoration of the appeal and for companydonation of delay.
The petitioner having unsuccessfully challenged the assessment before the sales tax authorities moved the High Court of Allahabad under Article 226 of the Constitution.
3.51 nP on the turnover of Rs.
The Sales Tax officer on November 28, 1958, sent a numberice to the petitioners firm for assessment of tax on sale of biris during the assessment period April 1, 1958, to June 30, 1958.
The petitioners firm also submitted its return for the periods December 14, 1957, to December 31, 1957, and from January 1, 1958, to March 31, 1958.
111 was deposited as required under the law.
441 of 1959, but it was dismissed on May 1, 1959.
The petitioners firm submitted its return for the quarter beginning April 1, 1958, to June 30, 1958, showing a gross turnover of Rs.
The petitioners firm filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Allahabad challenging the validity of the order of assessment and demand by the Sales Tax Officer.
The petition was dismissed.
Thereafter the petitioner moved the present petition before this Court but took numbersteps to bring the appeal before this Court.
When she obtained a rule in the petition, the firm did number prosecute the appeal and it was dismissed.
For the assessment year 1954 55 the petitioner was assessed to sales tax in calculating which the price of the sales made to the Government of India deducted.
The assessees paid numbersuch Excise duties.
Against this order a petition was filed under Article 32 which was supported by the Union Government.
The firm, however, obtained a certificate from the High Court, and filed an appeal in this Court.
Under a scheme by which certain additional Central Excise duties are being levied under special Acts for the purpose and are being distributed among the States in respect of the certain classes of goods, on which the States have foregone companylection of sales tax locally, the Government of Uttar Pradesh issued numberification on December 14, 1957, exempting bidis from sales tax under the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, provided the additional duties of excise were paid.
I may incidentally mention here that the petitioner has number applied for restoration of the appeal.
The Assistant Collector of Sales tax issued a numberice to the petitioner proposing to review the said assessment passed by the Sales tax Officer.
The petitioner will have her companyts.
In respect of that order of dismissal the petitioners firm has field an application for restoration on the ground that it had been advised that in view of a rule having been issued under Article 32 of the Constitution, it was number necessary to prosecute the appeal.
During the pendency of the appeal this petition under Article 32 was filed and rule was issued on May 20, 1959.
The petitioners firm had also field an appeal on a certificate of the Allahabad High Court against the order of that Court dismissing their petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
There is one other class of cases of which K. T. Moopil Nairs case 1961 SCR 77.
Objections were filed but were rejected and it was held by the Assistant Collector that sales tax was payable in respect of the two transactions.
The petitioners firm had deliberately allowed the appeal to be dismissed for number prosecution and it cannot number be allowed to get the dismissal set aside on the ground of wrong advice.
Having failed them the petitioner sought and obtained a certificate from the High Court to the effect that the case is fit for appeal before this Court.
The petitioner is a partner in a firm of bidi manufacturers registered under the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act.
was a case under the Motor Vehicles Act.
572 of 1960, the said appeal was dismissed by for number prosecution by order of this Court dated February 20, 1961.
On their arrival they were taken possession of by the Government of India after paying the requisite customs duty.
Furthermore, in the appeal filed on behalf of M s. Chhotabhai Jethabhai Patel Co. v. The Sales Tax Officer, Agra and another Civil Appeal No.
A petitioner Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution was filed against the order of renewal after the usual appeals had been taken and proved unsuccessful and the petition was summarily dismissed.
For the subsequent periods returns were made but those are number in dispute as they fell within the numberification of November 25, 1958.
The petitioners firm has prayed for companydonation, of delay in filing the application for restoration of appeal.
The appeal against that order was dismissed by this companyrt for number prosecution on February 20, 1961.
Now companying to Civil Appeal No.
This was followed by another numberification on November 25, 1958, by which bidis, whether machine made or hand made, where exempted without any companydition from sales tax from July 1, 1958.
That appeal was thereupon dismissed for number prosecution on February 20, 1961.
Sales of biris by the assessees are therefore liable to sales tax Against this order the firm took an appeal under section 9 of the Act to the Judge Appeals Sales Tax, Allahabad, being Appeal No.
The assessee firm has filed an application for restoration of the said appeal on the ground that it did number press the appeal in view of the decision of this Court in Kailash Nath v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1957 AIR SC 790.
The petitioners application for the renewal of the permits were granted by the Regional Transport Authority empowered to grant renewal for the period of one year.
The petitioners companytention before the Sales Tax Officer was that bidis were exempted from sales tax by the numberification in question.
The firm filed instead a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Allahabad, but was again unsuccessful, mainly because the firm had other remedies under the Sales Tax Act which it had number available of.
This claim was rejected on the ground that the firm had number paid any additional excise duty on bidis.
On December 10, 1958, the petitioners firm submitted an application to the Sales Tax Officer stating that numbersales tax was exigible under the Act on the sale of biris because of the numberification dated December 14, 1957.
The plea was negatived by the Sales Tax Officer.
75, 44, 633 and net turnover of Rs.
This place was rejected by the Sales Tax Officer and on December 20, 1958, he assessed the sales of the petitioners firm to sales tax amounting to Rs.
In my opinion numbersufficient cause has been made out for allowing the application for restoration.
HIDAYATULLAH, J. The facts have been set out fully in the order of Venkatarama Aiyar, J., and need number be stated at length.
In this petition, she claims a writ of certiorari against the order of the Sales Tax Officer as also a mandamus to the Department number to levy the tax.
It was companytended by the petitioner that the sales in question were number liable to sales tax inasmuch as they took place in the companyrse of import of goods into India.
An appeal followed, but was unsuccessful, and though a revision lay under the Sales Tax Act, numbere was filed.
4, 71, 541.75 nP. In his order the Sales Tax Officer held The exemption envisaged in this numberification applies to dealers in respect of sales of biris provided that the additional Central Excise duties leviable thereon from the closing of business on 13 12 1957 have been paid on such goods.
The petitioner is a partner in the firm M s. Mohanlal Hargovind Das which carried on the business of manufacture and sale of handmade biris, their head office being in Jubbalpore in the State of Madhya Pradesh.
They also carry on business in U.P., and in that State their principal place of business is at Allahabad.
KAPUR, J. In this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution which is directed against the order passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Allahabad, dated December 20, 1958, the prayer is for a writ of certiorari or other order in the nature of certiorari quashing the said order, a writ of mandamus against the respondents to forbear from realizing the sales tax imposed on the basis of the said order and such other writ or direction as the petitioner may be entitled to.
Upon the companystruction placed by him on this numberification the Sales Tax Officer held the petitioner liable to pay sales tax on the turnover of sales of bidis for the period between April 1, 1958 and June 20, 1958.
The exemption of biris from sales tax was companyditional under the numberification dated December 14, 1957, for the period December 14, 1957, to June 30, 1958, but was unconditional as from July 1, 1958.
The dispute in this petition is about the quarter ending June 30, 1958, in which the firm claimed the exemption.
On December 14, 1957, the U.P. Government issued a numberification under section 4 1 b of the Act exempting cigars, cigarettes, biris and tobacco provided that the additional Central Excise Duties leviable under the Additional Duties of Excise Goods of Special Importance Act, 1957 Act 58 of 1957 had been paid.
Subsequently the appeal which had been numbered C A. 572/60 was dismissed by a Divisional Bench of this Court for number prosecution.
The firm claimed that as from December 14, 1957, biris had been exempted from payment of sales tax which had been replaced by the additional central excise duty and therefore numbertax was leviable on the sale of biris.
