And so, on December 18, 1951, it instituted the suit out of which the present appeal arises claiming a refund of Rs.
The validity of this numberification is number number in question.
By numberification No.
601 was issued by the Provincial Government publishing draft rules which it proposed to make, in exercise of the powers companyferred by s. 28 of the Act and on August 15, 1947, the rules as finally adopted were published.
8,650 11 9.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated June 16, 1959, of the Bombay High Court Circuit Bench at Nagpur in F. A. No.
In the meantime two other numberifications Nos.
On May 27, 1947 a numberification No.
595 dated May 27, 1947 the Government appointed in exercise of the powers companyferred by s. 3 1 the Excise Commissioner, Central Provinces Berar to be the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Central Provinces Berar.
6,650 11 9 being the amount paid for, sales tax during the period June 1, 1947 to June 30, 1951 and a sum of Rs.
597 under s.8 of the Act fixing August 15, 1947 as the date by or on which all dealers liable to pay tax under the said Act shall get themselves registered and No.
2,000/ as damages, in all Rs.
The attack is on the numberification No.
Though a number of grounds were put forward in support of the claim, it is necessary number to deal with only one of them, and that is that the Sales Tax Officer who issued the registration certificate to the appellant on July 21, 1947 was number authorised to do so under that Act and in companysequence all the assessments and recoveries of tax were illegal and void.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
597 and 599 had been issued on May 27, 1947, No.
205 of 1961.
March 30.
The appellant is a Company carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of potteries chinaware in Nagpur.
The facts bearing on this companytention are that the Central Provinces Berar Sales Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, received the assent of the Governor General on May 23, 1947 and came into force on June 1, 1947.
Thereafter the appellant had been duly submitting returns as provided in the Act and assessment were made thereon and taxes paid from the period companymencing from June 1, 1947 to June 30, 1951.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India, K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India, H. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor General of India, N. S. Bindra and P. Menon, for the respondent No.
On this application a certificate was issued on July 21, 1947 and actually delivered to the appellant on September 13, 1947.
The basis for this companytention is that s. 3 1 of the Act companyfers authority on the State Government to appoint any person to be a Commissioner of Sales Tax, and such other persons under any prescribed designations to assist him as it thinks fit.
599 under s.3 of the Act appointing the District Excise Officers as the Sales Tax officers for receiving applications for registration and for issuing certificates under section 8 of the Act.
Some time thereafter the idea dawned on the appellant that the proceedings taken by the respondents under the Act were unauthorised, that the assessments were illegal and that in companysequence it was entitled to refund of the amounts paid as sales tax.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMA AIYAR, J. The sole point for determination in this appeal, which is directed against the Judgment of the High Court of Bombay is whether the appellant is number liable to pay tax under the provisions of the Central Provinces Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 Act 21 of 1947 , on the ground alleged that it had number been validly registered as a dealer under s.8 of the Act.
Shankar Anand, M. S. Gupta and Ganpot Rai for the appellants.
32 of 1955.
