BRIJLAL GUPTA, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner carries on the business of manufacture and sale of cotton cloth and cotton yarn in the city of Hathras. It is registered under section 8-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. For the year 1955-56 it was assessed to sales tax by the Sales Tax Officer, Hathras, by order dated 28th September, 1956, imposing a tax liability of Rs. 8,213-14-3 on it. A notice of demand dated 8th October, 1956, was issued by the Sales Tax Officer for realisation of the demand. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the assessment order and the notice of demand and has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing the same. It has also prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus restraining the Sales Tax Officer from enforcing the tax demand under the assessment order.
(2.) THE writ petition contains a number of grounds but two points only have been argued before me. The first point is that Notification No. S.T./117/X-293-1948 dated 8th June, 1948, specified that sales tax on cotton cloth and cotton yarn shall be levied only at the point of sale by the manufacturer. It was by reason of this specification in the said notification that sales tax was levied on the petitioner. The petitioner says that section 3-A as it stood on the date of the notification required the specification of the single point at which tax would be leviable by a rule made under the Act. The section itself may be quoted : "Notwithstanding anything contained in section 3, the State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, declare that the turnover in respect of any goods or class of goods shall not be liable to tax except at such single point in the series of sales by successive dealers as may be prescribed."
(3.) IT is true that because of the use of the words "as may be prescribed" the single point had to be determined by a rule made under the Act. It may, however, be noted that once the single point had been determined by a rule it had to be published by a notification. It follows that the State Government was fully empowered to specify the single point by a notification. The flaw was that the single point had not been determined by a rule. If the matter had stood there the notification would have been bad and should have been struck down.;