H.K.Bose, J. - (1.) This is an application under Article 220 of the Constitution for a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the opposite parties to rescind or withdraw three notices issued under the provisions of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act calling upon the petitioner to produce certain books of accounts and documents and also calling upon the petitioner to show cause why penalty should not be imposed on him under Section 11(2) of the said Act and why the petitioner should not be prosecuted for not getting his firm registered in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is one of the Aratdars at the Howrah betel-leaf market. It is alleged that the pan or betel-leaf cultivators of Howrah and Hooghly bring their produce to the Howrah panhat where these are sold to purchasers. In that market there is a class of middle men or Aratdars who help the cultivators in the sale, by bringing the seller-growers and purchasers together, guaranteeing the price, and when the price is not paid on the spot, by advancing to the seller-growers, the whole or part of the sale-price, taking upon themselves the responsibility of collecting the money due from the purchasers and for their labours the Aratdars or middle-men charge one pice per rupee on the sale-proceeds as their remuneration. In April 1951, a notice was issued upon the petitioner and several other pan agents under Section 22 (1) (a) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act for non-registration of the petitioner firm. On the 29 August, 1951, a petition was presented by the Howrah Pan Commission Agents Association stating that pan being a vegetable within the meaning of item No. 6 in the schedule appended to the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act was exempted from taxation and so the notice served should be discharged. On 27th September, 1951 the Commissioner however informed the President of the Association that the petition had been rejected. On 31st October, 1951, further notices were issued by the Commercial Tax Officer requiring the petitioner and other pan-agents to produce books of accounts and necessary documents for examination and informing them that it had been held by higher Sales Tax Authorities that pan was not a vegetable under item No. 6 of the schedule to the Sales Tax Act. The petitioner thereupon appeared before the Commercial Tax Officer and contended that pan was exempt from taxation and that the petitioner was not a dealer; but on 17th March, 1952 the Commercial Tax Officer held that the petitioner was a dealer and pan was not a vegetable and therefore was liable to taxation. On 29th April, 1952 the petitioner made a revisional application to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under Section 20(3) of the Act against the said order of the Commercial Tax Officer dated the 17th March. 1952. The said revisional application is still pending before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. On 13th June, 1953, the Commercial Tax Officer issued two fresh notices in Form No. VI under Sections 11 and 14(2) of the Sales Tax Act and directed the petitioner to attend before the said Officer on 20th July, 1953 with accounts and documents specified in the said notices. Both the said notices called upon the petitioner to show cause why penalty should not be imposed on him under Section 11(2) of the Act. One of the said notices bears No. 1 R-12/51/4800 and the case No. is 81 of 53-54. It sought to make the petitioner liable to assessment for the period commencing from the 17th January, 1952 and ending on the 31st Chaitra 1358 B.S. The other notice bears No. 1R-12/ 51/4801 and it relates to case no 85 of 53-54 and it seeks to make the petitioner liable in respect of the period commencing from 1st Baisakh 1359 B. S. and ending on 31st Chaitra 1359 B.S.
(3.) On 18th June, 1953, another notice bearing No. 1R-12/51/4799 was issued by the Commercial Tax Officer calling upon the petitioner to show cause under Section 22(1) (a) of the Act as to why the petitioner should not be prosecuted for not getting his firm registered in time. On 20th July, 1953 the petitioner produced accounts and documents before the Commercial Tax Officer and renewed his objection as to liability to pay tax on the ground that pan was an exempted article and that the petitioner was not a dealer. It is further alleged in paragraph 15 of the petition that the Pan Commission Agents including the petitioner have no authority to sell the stock of pan brought by the cultivators to the market and it is the cultivator who decides whether his produce should be sold to a particular bidder and at what price. The Pan Agents merely bring the seller-grower and the purchaser together and accept the responsibility of realising money from the purchasers, who from their long association, are usually intimately known to them. The petitioner has in the petition challenged the legality of the notices on the ground that pan is a vegetable within the meaning of item 6 & so exempt from taxation, and that the petitioner is not liable to taxation as he is not a dealer within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of the Sales Tax Act.;