UJJAM BAI VS STATE OF UP Case Summary
The fact of the case :
Two notifications were passed by the government of UP in 1957 and 58 with respect to the exemption of sales tax for certain goods exploding bidis which were added in the second notification. such exemption was not absolute and was on the basis of Central exercise duty payment the petitioner filed the quarterly return of the firm to which the sales tax officer repliedwith the notice for assessment of Bidis between April 1 and June 30 1958. The petitioner based on the same content that he has a clear exemption based on the notification. The SDO contended that the first notification applies to dealers in respect of Bidis provided the additional exercise leviable on them has been paid by December 13 1957 which was not paid and hence is liable to pay the tex. Aggrieved by the court of appeal and the High Court the petition was filed under Article 32 in the section.
The contention of the parties :
Petitioner
The petitioner contended that the whole assessment is unconstitutional and interferes with the right to carry out business with interfere with article 19(1) (g) of the constitution.
Further, it was contended that the STO misconducted notification I was respect to the exemption of tax on bidis on which additional exercise duty is levied as a result of which misconstruction tax was imposed on the petitioner which was unauthorised and is in violation of the right article 19(1)(g).
Respondent
It was contended that notification 1 exampts the petitioner from sales tax only is the additional exercise duty has been paid by the same party and that taxation is protected .
Under article 265 therefore falling out of the scope of article 19 (1)(g) of the constitution further it was contended that through restriction is imposed and order of assessment as made by a tribunal acting under statue such as order of December 1958 does not in infrings article 19(1) of the constitution.
Judgement
It was held that under article 32 the would cross and order of a quasi-judicial body affecting fundamental rights if –
• It acts without jurisdiction or
• Worngly assumes jurisdiction or
• Fails to follow the principle of natural justice or
• To observe the procedure provisions that are mandatory
Therefore in the current case, an order of assessment made by the authority under a taxing status which an intravires would not be open to challenge as violating article 19(1 ) (g ) on the only ground that it is based on a misconduction of provision of the act or of a notification issued thereunder. The petition was therefore dismissed as the tribunal took a decision which intra vires to the jurisdiction it possessed.
NIDHI VERMA ( BBALLB)
2ND YEAR STUDENT
SHRI RAMSWAROOP MEMORIAL UNIVERSITY
Comments