Skip to content


Beharilal Shyamsunder Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Cui Circle, Cuttack and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectConstitution
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Judge
Reported in[1966]60ITR260(SC); [1966]17STC508(SC)
ActsOrissa Sales Tax Act, 1947
AppellantBeharilal Shyamsunder
RespondentSales Tax Officer, Cui Circle, Cuttack and anr.
Cases ReferredK. S. Venkataraman & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. State of Madras
Excerpt:
.....article 226 for quashing assessment orders on ground that imposition of tax without authority of law or ultra vires - high court dismissed application on ground that appellant should have exhausted his internal remedies under act - appeal made before supreme court by special leave - question raised by appellant could not be decided by sales tax authorities under orissa sales tax act , 1947 - question of ultra vires foreign to jurisdiction of authorities - held, applications wrongly dismissed by high court - matter remanded back to high court for proper consideration. - adverse orders: [markandey katju & r.m.lodha, jj] natural justice held, no adverse orders should be passed against a party without hearing him. this is a fundamental principle of natural justice and basic canon of..........appearing for the sales tax officer raised a preliminary objection on the ground that the special leave petitions filed out of time. mr. a. v. viswanatha sastri appearing for the appellant contended that they were not barred. without deciding whether they were barred or not, on that there is some dispute, we think, having regard to the circumstances of the case, that this is a fit case for excusing the delay, if any. we accordingly excuse the delay in filing the special leave petitions. 2. the appellant filed petitions under the article 226 of the constitution of india for issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ quashing the assessment orders on the ground that the imposition of ax was without authority of law or ultra vires the sales tax act and the rules. 3. this.....
Judgment:

Subba Rao, J.

1. These are appeals by special leave against orders of the High Court of Orissa dismissing the petitions filed by the appellant under article 226 of the constitution of India to quash the notification issued by the Government of Orissa on the ground that the petitioner has 'not exhausted the internal remedies under the Orissa Sales Tax Act.' Learned Attorney-General appearing for the Sales Tax Officer raised a preliminary objection on the ground that the special leave petitions filed out of time. Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri appearing for the appellant contended that they were not barred. Without deciding whether they were barred or not, on that there is some dispute, we think, having regard to the circumstances of the case, that this is a fit case for excusing the delay, if any. We accordingly excuse the delay in filing the special leave petitions.

2. The appellant filed petitions under the article 226 of the constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ quashing the assessment orders on the ground that the imposition of ax was without authority of law or ultra vires the Sales Tax Act and the rules.

3. This court in K. S. Venkataraman & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. State of Madras (Civil Appeal No. 618 of 1963 decided on October 18, 1965) held that the Sales Tax Tribunal could only decide disputes between the assessee and the Commissioner in terms of the provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, and the question of ultra vires was foreign to its jurisdiction. For the same reason, we must hold that the question raised by the appellant before the High Court could not be decided by the sales tax authorities under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947. The High Court, therefore, went wrong in dismissing the applications on the ground that the appellant should exhaust his internal remedies under the said Act. The order of the High Court is set aside, the appeals are allowed and the matter is remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with law. Costs will abide the result.

4. Appeals allowed. Cases remanded.


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