Sen, J. - (1.) The appellant is a manufacturer of safety matches. During the period relevant for the assessment years 1957-58 to 1965-66, the appellant sold matches in the course of inter-State trade and commerce for which sales tax was charged under the Central Sales Tax Act. The assessment orders were challenged by the petitioner by filing writ petition before the High Court. The ground taken was that Central Sales Tax was levied on turnover which included excise duty. No Central Sales Tax could be levied on excise duty. The provisions of sub-sections (2), (2A) and (5) of Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act were ultra vires the Constitution of India. Claims for refund of the tax collected by the Sales Tax Authority were also made. Several other similar writ petitions were heard by the High Court along with the appellant's case. The High Court by its judgment dated 30th January, 1968, allowed the writ petitions in the case of Larsen and Toubro v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer, (1967) 20 STC 150. Following that decision, the High Court allowed the writ petitions filed by the appellant and the other writ petitioners. The Sales Tax Authority did not prefer any appeal in the case of the appellant, but went up in appeal in another case State of Madras v. N. K. Nataraja Mudaliar, AIR 1969 SC 147, in which this Court held that the provisions of sub-sections (2),(2A) and (5) of Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act were valid. It, however, held that tax on excise duty was illegal and affirmed the decision of the High Court on this point.
(2.) The case of the appellant is that even after the judgment of the Madras High Court, the Commercial Tax Officer did not refund the amount of tax illegally collected even though specific direction had been given by the High Court to that effect.
(3.) The position after the decision of this Court in the case of State of Madras v. N. K. Nataraja Mudaliar, (supra), was that levy of sales tax could not be said to be invalid because provisions of sub-sections (2),(2A) and (5) of Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act were ultra vires the Constitution of India. In disposing of the appeal, Shah J.(as His Lordship then was) directed:-(At. p. 160 of AIR) "The appeal will be allowed and the order passed by the High Court declaring the provisions of Sections 6(2),8(2A) and 8(5) ultra vires must be set aside. The petition out of which this appeal arises was one of a group of petitions filed before the High Court. Against orders passed in favour of the other assessees the State has not preferred appeals. The amount involved in the claim is small. The State apparently has approached this Court with a view to obtain a final determination of the important question which was raised in the petitions filed before the High Court. We therefore direct that there will be no order as to costs in this Court and in the High Court." ;