PAREEK HOSIERY PRODUCTS Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX APPEALS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax, Assistant Sates Tax Officer and the State of Rajasthan, respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively, from recovering any sales tax on certain hosiery goods manufactured and sold by the petitioner and for quashing the order of the respondent No. 2, dated 29th June, 1960.

(2.) THE petitioner carries on the business of manufacturing amongst other articles cotton vests (banians), underwears (jangias), mufflers and "topas", the cost of which does not exceed Rs. 4 each, in the City of Jaipur. THE State Government, respondent No. 3, in exercise of its powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (Act XXIX of 1954), by Notification No. F. 5(3) E&T/58 dated 31st January, 1958, exempted from the levy of sales tax, "the sale of any garment within prepared within or imported from outside Rajasthan the value of which does not exceed Rs. 4 in single piece, from payment of any tax under the said Act". THE petitioner kept on submitting his returns until June, 1958, without claiming exemption under the notification when he learnt of the existence of this notification. Even thereafter he submitted his quarterly returns in 1958 as well as in a part of 1959 on the old basis. When the question of assessment came up before the Sales Tax Officer, Jaipur City, Circle 'B', on 29th June, 1960, for the year 1958-59, on behalf of the petitioner an objection was taken that his total turnover consisted of sales of underwears, cotton vests etc., the price of each piece of which did not exceed Rs. 4 and, therefore, was exempted under the notification mentioned above. THE Assistant Sales Tax Officer dealing with the case held that although on test check it was found that the sale price of the goods sold by the petitioner did not exceed Rs. 4 a piece, nevertheless they were not the garments which were exempt from tax under the notification. He accordingly rejected the contention of the petitioner and made him liable to pay the tax less what he had already paid. A demand was served upon the petitioner against which he preferred an appeal but the Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax (Appeals) refused to entertain the appeal unless the tax was deposited as required by the law. THE petitioner has now come up by means of this petition to this Court and has asked for reliefs, we have already noticed.