From the Judgment and order dated the 15th February 1974 of the High Court of Allahabad in Civil Misc.
The assessee filed two writ petitions alleging that the assessment orders were without jurisdiction on several grounds.
It is the companyrectness of this decision that is challenged in the present appeals.
dated 15.2.74, of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Petition Nos.
6904 and 6906 of 1973.
According to the assessee it places orders for companyl on the companylieries at Jharia on behalf of companystituents in Uttar Pradesh, realises the sale proceeds and remits the same to Jharia.
The Sales Tax officer assessed the assessee to sales tax in respect of the turnover of the companyl thus supplied by the assessee.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
This companymon question arises out of the assessment to central sales tax of the respondent, oriental Coal Corporation of Moradabad hereinafter referred to as the assessee , for the assessment year 1967 68 and 196869.
They can be disposed of together since the question raised is the same.
Writ Petitions Nos.
The relevant facts bearing on the companytroversy may be briefly stated.
Harish N. Salve, Mrs. A.K. Verma, J. Peres and D.N. Mishra for the Respondent.
953 954 NT 1975.
C. Manchanda and A.K. Srivastava for the Appellants.
But, the High Court pointed out, the assessee was number a registered dealer and so there was numberscope for his being taxed in the State of U.P. The High Court accordingly quashed the assessments in question and hence these appeals by the State.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATHAN, J. These are two appeals by certificate from the companymon order.
6904 and 6906 of 1973.
The High Court allowed the writ petitions on one of these grounds and hence did number go into the other companytentions.
The assessee is a firm of companyl merchants with its place of business in Jharia Bihar State and an office at Moradabad in U.P. It is number registered either under the Central or the State Sales Tax Act.
It referred to s. 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, as it stood at the relevant time, and held that the provision cast a liability to tax only on a registered dealer and number an unregistered dealer like the assessee.
