- (1.) THIS writ petition by M/s. P. C. Bhandari and Co, (P.) Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) has been made under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution in the following circumstances: The petitioner is an assessee both under the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and under the Central Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act) and deals with tents, tent components, cotton, bags and newer etc. Admittedly, the returns for the quarter ending 31st December, 1964, both under the Act and the Central Act were not died. Purporting to act under rule 41(5) of the Rules framed under the Act respondent No. 2, the Sales Tax Officer Kanpur, assessed the petitioner to a sum of Rs. 24,000 under the Act and to a sum of Rs. 20,000 under the Central Act for the quarter ending 31st December, 1964. The petitioner filed appeals before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) Sales Tax, Kanpur, which were dismissed. Admittedly it did/not file any revision application before the Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax but made an application to the Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax for the stay of recovery of the tax during the pendency of the appeals before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) Sales Tax. The Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax had passed an order on 1st May, 1965, to the effect that if 25 per cent of the disputed tax was deposited and security for the balance was furnished within a month, then recovery of 75 per cent shall remain stayed till the disposal of the appeal. After the dismissal of the appeals respondent No. 2 issued two recovery certificates against the petitioner: one for a sum of Rs. 18,000 (balance under the Act) and the other for a sum of Rs. 15,000 (balance under the Central Act). The petitioner then moved the Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., respondent No. 1, on 8th November, 1965, praying for stay of the realisation of the two sums mentioned above, that is the aggregate amount of Rs. 33,000. The Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., passed an order on the same date (8th November, 1965) staying recovery of Rs. 33,000 subject to the petition furnishing security.
(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner it has complied with the order dated. 1st May, 1965, as also with the order dated 8th November, 1965. The petitioner received a notice from respondent No. 4, Amin, Sales Tax Collectorate of Kanpur on 9th June, 1967, calling upon it to pay the sum of Rs. 33,000 mentioned above and interest at the rate of 18 per cent. The petitioner moved the Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., who passed an order calling for a report from the Sales Tax Officer. It is stated in the petition that before making the best judgment assessment no notice was issued to the petitioner. On the basis of the facts mentioned above Sri Brijlal Gupta has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the orders mentioned above. He has also prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to take recovery proceedings in pursuance thereof. There is also the usual prayer for the issue of any other writ, order or direction which this Court in the circumstances of the case deems fit and proper to issue. Mr. Brijlal Gupta has made the following four submissions before us in support of this writ petition:- (1) That entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule only relates to a tax on sale and purchase of goods and not with interest. The provision for interest in the Act is, therefore, ultra vires of the U.P. Legislature. (2) That the orders of assessment passed by respondent No. 2 on 8th March, 1965, imposing a sum of Rs. 24,000 as sales tax under the Act and a sum of Rs. 20,000 as sales tax under the Central Act for the quarter ending 31st December, 1964, are bad as they violate the principles of natural justice. (3) That inasmuch as the Code of Civil Procedure provides for interest only at the rate of 6 per cent., the provision in the Act for interest at the rate of 18 per cent is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution and inasmuch as 18 per cent interest is usurious it is arbitrary and unconstitutional. (4) Because in view of the stay order passed by the Judge (Revisions) the petitioner was not a defaulter within the meaning of section 8(1-A) of the U.P. Act and in any case the subordinate authorities to the Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax were not competent to disregard the stay orders passed by him.
(3.) UNDER the law the petitioner admittedly can file revision applications and the Judge (Revisions) can, on a case being made out, give it full relief. Mr. Brijlal Gupta contends that the petitioner did not die revision applications because at the end of the year while making the final assessments, provisional assessments made on 8th March, 1965, would have to he reopened and the amounts paid or made payable under the orders dated 8th March, 1965, would be adjusted while determining the taxes payable for the whole year. The petitioner can, in this manner, get full redress for its alleged grievance and if it has deliberately chosen to adopt that course, it must take the logical consequences of its decision and wait till the final assessments for the year in question are made. The existence of this alternative remedy is a good ground for not admitting this petition The petitioner admittedly has also the alternative remedy of filing revision applications. That is another reason why this petition should not be admitted. We would have disposed of the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy alone without entering into the merits of the submissions made by Mr. Gupta. Mr. Gupta has, however, contended that inasmuch as he has challenged the vires of certain provisions of the Act and has complained of violation of principles of natural justice, the existence of the alternative remedies should not be construed as a bar to the maintenance of this petition and the merits of his contentions be also considered. We, therefore proceed to consider the submission of Mr. Brijlal Gupta seriatim.;