17 of 1956.
Thereupon the Sales Tax Officer made certain enquiries and found that the petitioners had been frequently shifting their places of business and the sales alleged to have been made by them to some registered dealers were number genuine, because those persons companyld number be traced at the addresses given.
On May 17, 1957, the petitioners asked for a fresh registration certificate on the ground that their original certificate had been lost in transit.
5,000 by December 15, 1957.
The Chief Commissioner heard Counsel for the petitioners and by his order dated April 15, 1958, dismissed the application in revision.
10,000 in accordance with the provisions of s. 8A. The petitioners then appeared before the Sales Tax Officer and made a statement that they were number prepared to deposit any amount as security.
On July 13,1957, such a numberice was issued to the petitioners to show cause why they should number be asked to furnish a security of Rs.
The petitioners then carried an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi.
The Commissioner expressed his finding in the following words In view of the reputation that the dealer enjoys in the market, namely, that he being a companymission agent has been engaged in the business of selling goods to other companymission agents, all sales being effected to unscrupulous registered dealers, frequent changes in the name and place of busines without giving specific details, late submission of information regarding the changes in the name and place of business, number submission of returns for the year 1956 57 within the prescribed time, it appears neces sary to demand security under section 8A of the Bengal Finance Sales Tax Act, 1941 as in force in Delhi.
Tax Officer issued a demand numberice for a sum of Rs.
The matter was then referred to the Commissioner of Sales Tax who company sidered the explanation of the petitioners and the report of the Sales Tax Officer.
The petitioners then filed a writ petition in the Punjab High Court which was summarily dismissed.
On the present writ petition the petitioners have impugned the order of the Commissioner dated November 27, 1957 on the ground that s. 8A of the Act under which the order was passed is companystitutionally invalid.
They also filed a written explanation objecting to the demand of security.
Against the aforesaid order of the Commissioner the petitioners went in revision to the Chief Commissioner of Delhi.
They further asked for the addition of some more items of goods in the registration certificate, such as cigarettes, bidis and glass of all kinds.
32 of the Constitution.
Bhavani Lal and P. C. Agarwala, for the petitioners.
32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of Fandamental Rights.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Petition No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. DAS, J. This is a writ petition under Art.
Petition Under Art.
Accordingly, on November 27, 1957, he made an order directing the petitioners to furnish security either in cash or by two personal sureties for a Bum of Rs.
The Sales.
On a report being submitted to the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi, the Commissioner asked the Sales Tax Officer to issue a numberice to the petitioners.
77 of 1958.
March 14.
The petitioners, Messrs. Nand Lal Raj Kishan, carry on a business of companymission agents at Delhi and are liable to pay sales tax in respect of their business under the provisions of the Bengal Finance Sales Tax Act, 1941, as in force in Delhi.
The Assistant Commissioner set aside the order of the Sales Tax Officer and remanded the case for a fresh decision in the light of certain judgments given by the Chief Commissioner, Delhi, in a number of similar cases.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India, B. Ganapathy Iyer and T. M. Sen, for the respondents.
By his order dated April 11, 1956, the Sales Tax Officer disallowed the exemption claimed by the petitioners mainly on the ground that the alleged sales were made to those registered dealers whose activities had gone underground.
They have challenged the validity of s. 8A on three grounds firstly, it is companytended that s. 8A gives an undefined, unlimited and unrestricted power to the Commissioner of Sales Tax secondly, it is companytended that numberlimit is fixed with regard to the amount of security which may be demanded under the section and thirdly, it is companytended that the section imposes an unreasonable restriction on the right of the petitioners to carry on their business inasmuch as it does number provide for any enquiry before the demand for security is made, number does it provide for an opportunity being given to the person against whom the order is proposed to be passed of being heard before such order is passed.
They filed returns for four quarters of 195455 and claimed exemption in respect of sales of certain goods to the registered dealers under the provi sions of s. 5 2 a ii of the said Act.
1,11,890 11 0 on account of sales tax.
In the meantime the Bengal Finance Sales Tax Act, 1941, was amended by the Bengal Finance Sales Tax Delhi Amendment Act, 1956, being Act No.
