N.D.Ojha, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been filed by the Sales Tax Officer, Sector V, Kanpur, under Article 133 (1) (a) and (c) of the Constitution of India for a certi ficate to file an appeal in the Supreme Court against the judgment of this Court dated November 17, 1970 allowing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3079 of 1970.
(2.) THE respondent No. 1 M/s. Prime Products Ltd., Kanpur, which is a private limited company deals in manufac ture and supply of sole leather tanned by it as also supply of military boots to the Military Department. The sales tax on leather goods upto the year 1961 was levi able at the rate of 2 paise per rupee, but by a notification dated April 5, 1961 the said rate was raised to 3 paise per rupee. For the year 1963-64 the respondent No. 1 was assessed to sales tax at the rate of 2 paise per rupee. In 1964-65 it was as sessed to a sales tax at the rate of 3 paise per rupee. Against this assessment for the year 1964-65 the respondent No. 1 fil- _jed an appeal wherein it succeeded and it was held that the rate applicable to the goods dealt with by it was 2 paise per rupee and not 3 paise per rupee. In the meantime however, the petitioner being of the view that a mistake had been com mitted at the time of .assessment for the year 1963-64 in assessing the respondent No. 1 at the rate of 2 paise per rupee only in place of 3 paise per rupee issued a notice to the respondent No. 1 under Sec tion 22 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act (here inafter referred to as the Act), to show cause why the assessment order for the year 1963-64 may not be amended. The respondent No. 1 showed cause against the said notice but the petitioner passed an order on January 31, 1966 amending the assessment order on the ground that there was a patent mistake on the record. As a result of the rectification made by virtue of the said order an additional tax in the sum of Rs. 16,836.20 P. was asses sed on the respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 filed an appeal which was dismissed by respondent No. 2 on April 1, 1970. The respondent No. 1 thereafter filed the aforesaid Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3079 of 1970 in this Court wherein reliefs (a) and (b) were as follows:- "(a) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the following orders:- (i) order of respondent No. 1 dated 31st January, 1968, annexure 'H' to this writ petition. (ii) order of respondent No. 2 dated 1st April, 1970 annexure T to this writ petition. (b) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of prohibition commanding the respondent No. 1 not to recover any tax levied in pursuance of the order dated 31st January, 1968." The writ petition was contested by the petitioner but was allowed by this Court on November 17, 1970. Now the petitioner has made the aforesaid applica tion for certificate under Article 133 (1) (a) and (c) of the Constitution. From a peru sal of the writ petition it is clear that the challenge was in regard to the jurisdiction of the petitioner to pass an order of recti fication under Section 22 of the Act. The quantum of the tax assessed or even sought to be recovered was not challenged, if the assessment order was held to be within the jurisdiction of the petitioner. So the subject-matter of the dispute was incapable of valuation and as such Article 133 (1) (a) will not be attracted. In regard to the nature of proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution it will be useful to remember the following observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh v. Gendalal, AIR 1966 SC 1445:- "Under that jurisdiction the High Court does not hear an appeal or revision. The High Court is moved to intervene and to bring before itself, the record of a case decided by or pending before a Court or Tribunal or any authority within the High Court's jurisdiction. A petition to the High Court invoking this jurisdiction is a proceeding quite independent of the original controversy. The controversy in the High Court, in proceedings arising under Article 226 ordinarily is whether a decision of or a proceeding before a court or Tribunal or authority, should be allow ed to stand or should be quashed for want of jurisdiction or on account of errors of law apparent on the face of the record."
(3.) IT may be said that on the re sult of the writ petition, would depend the liability of the respondent No. 1 to pay the tax assessed which is capable of valuation. If that contingency is taken into consideration Article 133 (1) (b) may be attracted but no certificate has been prayed for under clause (b). 334 All. [Prs. 5-8] S. T. Officer, Kanpur v. Prime Products Ltd. (N. D. Ojha J.) A.I.R.;