- (1.) ALL these four writ petitions have been filed by persons carrying on business in Kanpur in various commodities, for example,. silver, gold, 'bardana', cerials etc. Proceedings are going on against all these petitioners for assessment of sales tax under the U. P. Sales Tax Act of 1948. The petitioners have filed these petitions praying for the quashing of the proceedings that are going on before the Sales Tax Officers on the allegation that the Sales Tax Officers are seeking to assess tax on the petitioners in respect of forward transactions only and taxation on such forward transactions is not permissible by law as held by a Division Bench of this Court in--'budh Prakash Jai Prakash v. Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur', AIR 1952 All 764 (A ). In dealing with these petitions, I have had considerable difficulty for the reason that the affidavits filed are not straightforward, do not give facts clearly and concisely and have not been properly verified. In almost all these cases, the petitioners were given opportunity to file supplementary affidavits and in one of them the petitioner has filed a second supplementary affidavit. This last case is case No, 22 of 1954. In spite of these supplementary affidavits, the facts are not clear and are not sufficient to enable this Court to decide the writ petitions properly.
(2.) THE main ground on which the petitioners have come to this Court for issue of writs is that the assessing authorities are seeking to assess the petitioners in respect of forward transactions which are not taxable in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court mentioned above. The affidavits filed in all these petitions are, however, so unsatisfactory that in none of the cases can I be satisfied that the assessment proceedings going on against the petitioners are in respect of only such forward transactions as are not taxable according to the view of this Court. The affidavits mentioned that the petitioners carried on various businesses and particularly business in ready goods in gold and silver species. In addition, the affidavits mentioned that they carried on business in forward transactions in gold, silver, bardana and grains. It is not said in plain words in the affidavits that the forward transaction business of the petitioners is exclusively of those cases in which no actual delivery at all takes place. Learned counsel, when argu-ing these petitions, submitted that the petitioners, when mentioning that they deal in transactions known as ready transactions in gold and silver species or in bardana, meant to refer to transactions of forward transactions in which deliveries actually take place and not transactions in which the settlement of accounts and the delivery are all simultaneous. This interpretation of the affidavits cannot be accepted. In several of the affidavits where mention is made of ready transactions, the commodities mentioned are 'gold', 'silver' and 'bardana' whereas, when the forward contract business is mentioned, besides these commodities 'grains' are also mentioned. If the assessment proceedings are Simply in respect of transactions in forward con-tracts in which no deliveries take place at all and there is no other business of the petitioners in respect of which proceedings are being taken, it should have been possible for the petitioners to say so in clear and unequivocal terms which they have avoided doing. In these circumstances, on the affidavits filed it is not possible to come to any finding that the assessment proceedings relate to only such forward transactions as are not liable to tax, and consequently those proceedings cannot be quashed.
(3.) THERE is further nothing in the affidavits filed in support of any of the petitions to show that, even if the proceedings are in respect of forward transactions not liable to tax, the petitioners are not liable to be assessed on other grounds such as realisation of tax by them which was not due in their capacity as registered (dealers and which they are liable to deposit in the treasury under section 8-A (4), U. P. Sales Tax Act of 1948. It is after proceedings have been gone through and facts have been investigated that it can be determined whether the petitioners should or should not be taxed and, while such determination is necessary, the proceedings for determination before proper authorities cannot be quashed.;