BENI RAM MOOL CHAND Vs. SALES TAX OFFICER FATEHGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution arises out of recovery proceedings under the Central Sales Tax Act and the U.P. Sales Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as the Central Act and the U.P. Act respectively. M/s. Beni Ram Mool Chand are the petitioners.

(2.) THIS is a firm carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling scents. The petitioner became liable to pay sales tax under the two statutes. The tax remained unpaid for a considerable time. The authorities, therefore, initiated proceedings for recovery of arrears of tax. The Collector of Farrukhabad issued on 28th March, 1967, a sale proclamation with respect to certain property belonging to the petitioner. According to the sale proclamation, the arrears outstanding against the petitioner amounted to Rs. 73,000 and odd. According to the petitioner, the claim of the respondents is highly exaggerated. The petitioner has, therefore, flied this petition for having the sale proclamation quashed. Annexure F to the petition is a copy of the sale proclamation.

(3.) MR . Brij Lal Gupta urged that the U.P. Legislature has no power to levy interest on arrears of sales tax. Entry No. 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India confers on State Legislatures power to impose tax on the sale or purchase of goods. It is true that there is no reference to interest in entry No. 54. But it seems to us that power to charge interest on arrears of sales tax is a power incidental to the power to impose sales tax.