Skip to content


Kulbhushan Chawla Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case Number Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. Nil of 1983
Judge
Reported in[1986]61STC215(All)
AppellantKulbhushan Chawla
RespondentCommissioner of Sales Tax
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
- - in that connection the circular dated 11th october, 1983 (annexure i to the writ petition), has been challenged, which contains a general direction that such forms shall not be issued unless the applicant deposits as security a like amount......a sum of rs. 420 per form. since similar situation has arisen again and the petitioner asked for supply of form xxxi, in order to guard against malpractices, the department has issued the impugned circular whereby a sum of rs. 300 is being demanded from the applicant by way of security before the supply of form. it may be noticed that under rule 86(4) of the u.p. sales tax rules an applicant cannot ask for the supply of such forms as a matter of right, on the other hand, it is in the discretion of the sales tax officer. the sales tax officer cannot be compelled to issue the forms applied for : see krishna coal concern, ballia v. sales tax officer, ballia 1975 uptc 721. in view of this division bench decision of this court there appears to be no legal infirmity in the direction for.....
Judgment:

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that form XXXI under Rule 85(3) is not being issued to the petitioner unless a security of Rs. 300 is deposited in its behalf. In that connection the circular dated 11th October, 1983 (annexure I to the writ petition), has been challenged, which contains a general direction that such forms shall not be issued unless the applicant deposits as security a like amount. In fact, this direction has been occasioned on account of an extensive malpractice. A writ petition was filed in this Court in which similar matter was considered, being Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 685 of 1983 in which an interim order was passed requiring the petitioner therein to deposit as security a sum of Rs. 420 per form. Since similar situation has arisen again and the petitioner asked for supply of form XXXI, in order to guard against malpractices, the department has issued the impugned circular whereby a sum of Rs. 300 is being demanded from the applicant by way of security before the supply of form. It may be noticed that under Rule 86(4) of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules an applicant cannot ask for the supply of such forms as a matter of right, on the other hand, it is in the discretion of the Sales Tax Officer. The Sales Tax Officer cannot be compelled to issue the forms applied for : see Krishna Coal Concern, Ballia v. Sales Tax Officer, Ballia 1975 UPTC 721. In view of this Division Bench decision of this Court there appears to be no legal infirmity in the direction for demand of security, which is being made prior to the issue of the forms.

2. Morever, this power is fully contained in Section 8-C of the U.P. Sales Tax Act and, therefore, the demand does not appear to be incompetent. Further, it is significant that a person aggrieved by an order passed under this provision is entitled to file an appeal under Section 9 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. Thereafter a still further remedy is available by preferring a second appeal under Section 10 of the aforesaid Act.

3. In these circumstances, we find no force in this petition.

4. It is accordingly dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //