1,00,513 119 to Messrs. Panna Lal Binjraj for which the appellant claimed a deduction.
It should be emphasised here that the appellant prayed for and got leave to appeal from the orders of the Board dated August 20, 1953 and September 3, 1953 passed on the two applications in revision.
Then, this Court was moved for special leave to appeal from the orders of the 1 19551 S.C R. 941.
The present appeal is against the decision of the Tribunal itself.
On February 17,1955, the appellant made an application to this Court for special leave to appeal from the orders of the Board of Revenue passed on the two applications in revision as respects the first two periods.
Again, the appellant neither asked for number obtained any leave to appeal from the subsequent orders of the High Court by which the High Court held that only one question of law arose out of the orders passed with regard to the third period of assessment and directed the Board to state a case on that question.
The Board by its orders dated August 20, 1953, and September 3, 1953, dismissed the petitions of revision relating to the first two periods and by its orders dated April 30, 1954, also dismissed the petition of revision relating to the third period.
The finding of the High Court was thus expressed We are satisfied that the petitioner was number entitled to deduction of the amount of the price of mustard seed sold to Messrs. Panna Lal Binjraj for the purpose of manufacture because there is numbermention in the certificate of registration granted to Messrs. Panna Lal Binjraj that mustard seed companyld be sold to them for the purpose of manufacture free of tax.
The appellant then moved the High Court for requiring the Board to state a case on the questions of law which, according to the appellant, arose out of the orders passed with regard to the first two periods of assessment.
In these circumstances the appellant asked for special leave and companydonation of delay.
These appeals were heard by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,, Bihar, and were dismissed by him.
On the facts stated above the question which has arisen is whether as a matter of practice of this Court, the appellant is enticed to be heard on merits in the three appeals when special leave was neither asked for number granted in respect of the subsequent orders of the High Court relating to the assessments in question which have number become final between the parties thereto.
The Income tax Officer made an estimate which was accepted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
With regard to the third period of assessment regarding which the High Court had directed the Board to state a case on a particular question of law and had actually answered it, the appellant again made an application for special leave to appeal on April 12, 1955, and this Court granted leave to the appellant by an order dated December 23, 1955, the leave granted being companyfined to the order of the Board of Revenue dated August 30, 1954, by which the Board decided that numberquestions of law arose for a reference to the High Court.
The Tribunal dismissed the application for a reference on the ground of limitation and the High Court had numberpower to extend the time.
Then the appellant filed applications in revision under s. 24 of the Act to the Board of Revenue, Bihar.
The appellant then preferred appeals under the relevant provisions of the Act.
461 and 462 of 1952 and 430 of 4954, respectively.
On June 7, 1951 the Sales Tax Officer companycerned disallowed the claim of the appellant for the first two periods and by an order dated April 17, 1953, the claim for the third period was also disallowed.
Appeals by special leave from the decision dated August 20, 1953/September 3, 1953, and August 30, 1954, of the Board of Revenue, Bihar at Patna in Reference Cases Nos.
No application was made for leave to appeal, number was any leave granted, with regard to the subsequent orders made by the Board refusing to state a case or the orders of the High Court refusing the application of the appellant to direct the Board to state a case.
Special leave was granted by companydoning the delay.
But for this period there was an additional claim with regard to the sale of mustard seed worth Rs.
Tribunal, and the appeals were brought with special leave granted by this Court.
An application under s. 66 1 was rejected and an attempt to move the High Court under s. 66 2 also proved unsuccessful.
Similarly, for the next assessment period companymencing on April 1, 1948 and ending on March 31, 1949 the appellant claimed a deduction of certain amounts the exact amounts being irrelevant for our purpose on the two grounds mentioned above from the relevant turnover.
Under s. 25 1 of the Act the appellant moved the Board to state a case to the High Court of Patna on certain questions of law which, According to the appellant, arose out of the orders passed.
application to this Court for special leave to appeal against the order of the tribunal this Court granted special leave and in the appeal filed in pursuance thereof quashed the order of the Tribunal.
This Court granted the leave prayed for by an order dated December 23, 1955.
On a similar application made by the appellant to the High Court with regard to the third period of assessment, the High Court directed the Board of Revenue to state a case on the following question Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim a deduction on account of sale of mustard seed to the extent of Rs.
The Board, however, refused to state a case inasmuch as in its opinion numberquestions of law arose out of the orders passed.
It was registered as a dealer under s. 4 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1944, with effect from July 1, 1946.
For three periods, companymencing from October 1, 1947 and ending on March 31, 1950, it was assessed to sales tax on its turnover of the relevant periods, which companysisted inter alia of purchases alleged, to have made on behalf of two other jute mills outside Bihar, namely, the Raigarh Jute Mills and the Bengal Jute Mills, and also of dispatches of jute said to have been made to the dealers own firm in Calcutta for sale in Calcutta.
By an order dated January 21, 1957 the High Court answered the question against the appellant.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
The matter was taken to the Appellate Tribunal which made its own estimate.
Nor did the appellant move against the judgment and order of the High Court dated January 21, 1957, by which the High Court answered the one question referred to it adversely to the appellant.
They raise a companymon question as to the practice of this Court, which we shall presently state.
The relevant facts are these.
The Board expressed the view that the two questions, namely, 1 whether the despatch of jute outside the State of Bihar was a sale within the meaning of the Act and 2 whether the purchases said to have been made on behalf of the two mills outside Bihar were liable to tax, were both companycluded by findings of fact arrived at by the companypetent authorities on relevant materials in the record and were numberlonger open to challenge.
For the assessment period companymencing on October 1, 1947 and ending on March 31, 1948 the appellant claimed a deduction of a Rs.
By an order dated November 17, 1954, the High Court dismissed the two applications made to it for requiring the Board to state a case to the High Court with regard to the said two periods.
Veda Vyas and B. P. Maheshwari, for the appellant.
2 195834 I.T.R. 646, 3 195936 I.T.R. 521.
136 of the Constitution have been heard together and this judgment will govern them all.
For the third period of assessment companymencing on April 1, 1949 and ending on March 31, 1950 a similar claim was made.
1,00,513 11 9 to Messrs. Panna Lal Binjraj as sales made to a registered dealer under the Schedule to Bihar Finance Act number 11 of 1949 read with the Bihar Sales Tax Act Bihar Act XIX of 1947 .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. DAS,J. These three appeals with special leave granted under Art.
6,58,880 5 9 on the ground that the said amount represented purchases made on behalf of the aforesaid two jute mills, and b Rs.
C. Prasad, for the Respondent.
April 24.
1,62,662 13 3 being despatches of jute made to the dealers own firm in Calcutta.
The firm of Messrs. Durga Dutt Chandi Prasad, appellant in these appeals, carried on a business of dealing in several kinds of goods but mostly in raw jute at Sahebganj in Bihar.
As the companyditions imposed by the proviso to section 5 have number been satisfied in this case, the Sales tax authorities rightly decided that deduction of the price of mustard seed sold to Messrs. Panna Lal Binjraj cannot be granted to the petitioner.
