- (1.) This is an appeal by the petitioner-appellant against an order of Binayak Nath Banerjee, J. dated May 26, 1965 summarily dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226(1) of the Constitution of India.
(2.) The petitioner was served with a notice under Section 7 of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act 1913 along with a copy of the certificate for Rs.10,675.10 p. representing tax payable under Section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with section 11 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. The petitioner filed an objection challenging the validity of the certificate and denying liability. The objection was summarily rejected by the Certificate Office on 12th March 1964. An appeal was taken to the Collector which was also dismissed. The petitioner thereafter filed a petition in revision before the Commissioner which also met with the same fate. The petitioner moved a revisional application therefrom before the Board of Revenue which by order dated 2nd April, 1965 dismissed the petition. The petitioner thereafter moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution as already stated praying for writs quashing the order of the Board of Revenue and also forbearing the respondents from giving effect to the impugned order. Curiously enough no writ was prayed for quashing the certificate itself and the application was summarily rejected.
(3.) Various contentions were raised by Mr. Das Gupta in respect of the appeal and as the appeal was contested by the respondents, we have heard the learned Advocates on the merits of the case. Mr. Das Gupta's primary contention centers round the form of the certificate which according to him suffers from fatal irregularities. He has referred to the well known legal proposition as set out in Herbert Broom's "A selection of legal maxims" (Tenth Edn.): "A remedial statute, therefore, shall be liberally construed, so as to include cases of mischief which the statute was intended to remedy; whilst, on the other hand, where the intention of the legislature is doubtful, the inclination of the court will always be against that construction which imposes a burden, tax or duty, on the subject.";