Skip to content


Blackstone Products Ltd. Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMatter No. 96 of 1957
Judge
Reported in[1958]9STC796(Cal)
AppellantBlackstone Products Ltd.
RespondentThe Commercial Tax Officer and ors.
Cases ReferredM.P.V. Sundararamier & Co. v. The State of Andhra and Anr.
Excerpt:
- .....stone chips. it carries on business in the state of bihar and is a registered dealer under the bihar sales tax act. the transactions relate to sales and purchases whereby pakur stone chips have been delivered in bengal to be consumed in that state. the state of west bengal claims to levy sales tax on such sales and purchases. the petitioners have taken the same points as have been taken in matter no. 146 of 1957 (ashoka marketing ltd. v. commercial tax officer, central section, calcutta [1958] 9 s.t.c. 624). these matters have been heard together and there has been a common set of arguments. for the reasons that i have given in matter no. 146 of 1957 (ashoka marketing ltd. v. commercial tax officer, central section, calcutta [1958] 9 s.t.c. 624 and in matter no. 161 of 1955, (indian.....
Judgment:

Sinha, J.

1. The facts in this case are similar to the facts in Matter No. 146 of 1957 (Ashoka Marketing Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Central Section, Calcutta [1958] 9 S.T.C. 624). In this case, the petitioner carries on business at Pakur in the State of Bihar. It is said that there is no business of the petitioner in Calcutta. The petitioner carries on business in Pakur in quarrying and selling stone chips known as Pakur stone chips. It carries on business in the State of Bihar and is a registered dealer under the Bihar Sales Tax Act. The transactions relate to sales and purchases whereby Pakur stone chips have been delivered in Bengal to be consumed in that State. The State of West Bengal claims to levy sales tax on such sales and purchases. The petitioners have taken the same points as have been taken in Matter No. 146 of 1957 (Ashoka Marketing Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Central Section, Calcutta [1958] 9 S.T.C. 624). These matters have been heard together and there has been a common set of arguments. For the reasons that I have given in Matter No. 146 of 1957 (Ashoka Marketing Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Central Section, Calcutta [1958] 9 S.T.C. 624 and in Matter No. 161 of 1955, (Indian Standard Wagon Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1958] 9 S.T.C. 553, I must hold that no grounds have been made out for interference by this Court and that the application must be dismissed. Rule discharged. Interim orders vacated. There will be no order as to costs. It has been agreed between the parties that I need not repeat the reasons in my judgment in each case but it will be sufficient to refer to the judgment delivered to-day in Matter No. 161 of 1955 and No. 146 of 1957. It has been pointed out that the main contention in this application is as to whether these transactions are validated by the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act (No. VII of 1956), passed by Parliament which came into force on 21st March, 1956. All the various authorities on the subject have been considered in my judgment and it has been pointed out that the matter has been finally decided by the Supreme Court in M.P.V. Sundararamier & Co. v. The State of Andhra and Anr. [1958] 9 S.T.C. 298 By the majority judgment delivered by Aiyar, J., it has been held that the Validation Act has validated such transactions. It is admitted that the transactions in these cases are Explanation sales within the period covered by the Validation Act. Therefore, for the reasons stated in the judgments mentioned above, it must be held that the respondents are entitled to levy tax and that no case has been made out for interference by this Court.

2. I might mention that this Court has no jurisdiction over the State of Bihar but it is because the Government of Bihar have opened an office in Calcutta and are attempting to realise taxes here and to take proceedings in respect thereof, that this Court has attained jurisdiction. The most that could have been done, of course, was to prevent the persons within the jurisdiction from proceeding contrary to law. But by reason of the fact that this and the other applications have failed, no such directions have become necessary. The Rule must, therefore, be discharged. Interim orders vacated. No order as to costs.

3. It must, however, be recorded that the parties have agreed that where assessment has not already been made, the assessee will be allowed one month's time from the date of the judgment to put in their returns or any supplementary returns and that assessment will only be made thereafter in accordance with law. Where, however, assessments have already been made, nothing herein will affect it but the parties will be at liberty to take such steps they may be entitled to under the law in respect thereof.


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