# Proceedings under U.P. Sales Tax Act 1948

- **Citation:** C.L. No. 8/VIIIf-144/Admn
- **Court:** Allahabad High Court
- **Decided:** 1989-02-22
- **Case number:** C.L. No. 8/VIIIf-144/Admn
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/proceedings-under-u-p-sales-tax-act-1948-163248
- **Pages:** 3

## Text

200
1925, even though they said certificate may not be meant for presentation in a court or
public office.
(x)
 Proceedings under U.P. Sales Tax Act 1948
C.L. No. 8/VIIIf-144/Admn. (G) dated 22nd February, 1989
Section 9 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 provides that any dealer or other person
aggrieved by an order made by the assessing authority, other than an order mentioned in
section 10-A, may within thirty days from the date of service of the copy of the order,
appeal to such authority as may be prescribed. Likewise, section 17 of the said Act
makes it clear that save as is provided in section 11, no assessment made and no order
passed under this Act or the Rules made there under by the assessing authority shall be
called into question in any court, and save as is provide in sections 9 and 10, no appeal or
application of revision or review shall lie against any such assessment or order. Such
power is only vested in the courts specially constituted under section 9 of the U.P. Sales
Tax Act, 1948.
District Judges should impress upon all the presiding officers that any failure in
complying with the aforesaid provisions shall amount to dereliction of duty on their part.
(xi)
Family pension cases
C.L. No. 16/Admn. (A) dated 28th January, 1977
The cases filed under section 14-A of the Employees' Provident Fund (and
Family Pension Fund) Act, 1952 should be decided expeditiously.
(xii)
Election petitions
C.L. No. 23/IV-g-4 dated 29th March, 1950
Delay in the disposal of election petitions against presidents and members of
District Board causes administrative difficulties and is in the interest of administration as
well as of the local bodies that election petitions are decided expeditiously.
(xiii) Cases relating to dissolution of marriage
G.L. No. 198/67-1 dated 11th July, 1922
Suits for divorce and separation are comparatively rare in this State. It is not to be
expected that either on the Bench, or at the Bar, there should be much familiarity with
divorce practice. But this fact should induce a special degree of care and circumspection
in the disposal of such suits on the part of the judge.
The duty of dissolving marriages is one involving serious responsibility. The
decision affects not merely the character, reputation and the future of the alleged guilty
party, but also the welfare of the children, the validity of remarriages, the legitimacy of
children who may be subsequently born and the interests of public morality.
In undefended cases the court should invariably satisfy itself by unimpeachable
testimony that the absence of the alleged guilty respondent is due entirely to a
consciousness of guilt, and of the futility of denying the charge, and to no other cause.
The following recommendations, which from the nature of things cannot be more
than superficial, and do not profess to be comprehensive should in all cases be rigorously
201
followed. They represent points which, recent experience has proved to the High Court,
are often overlooked-
I.
Marital offences (adultery, cruelty and the like) must be proved, whether they are
denied or not, with the same particularity and certainty as courts are accustomed
to require in criminal trials.
II.
It is the established rule that in a husband's petition the wife has an absolute right
to be provided if necessary by an order of the court, with funds in advance to
enable her to obtain legal advice and to defend herself with legal aid if she intends
to deny the charges. Every notice of a petition served upon a wife should include
a clear intimation to the respondent of this right. It is so well established that a
lawyer employed by the wife, on her own responsibility, can sue the husband for
the cost which he reasonably incurs, such costs, being held to be ―necessaries‖ for
which a wife may pledge her husband's credit if there is reasonable ground for
resisting the petition.
III.
The petition should contain a precise statement of the dates, and places, at which
each marital offence, of whatever kind, is alleged to have taken place.
IV.
A petition containing mere vague and general allegation should be summarily
rejected as disclosing no ground for a decree. All general allegations should be in
any case struck out from the petition before notice is issued. The proper form of
order is- ―paragraph...... to be struck out unless within...... days the petitioner
furnishes to the respondent in writing particulars of the date when, the place
where and the person with whom, each and every of the alleged acts of
misconduct took place.‖
V.
Any variation between the precise particulars of marital offences alleged in the
petition, and the evidence called to support them, should be regarded with
suspicion unless satisfactorily explained especially in undefended suits.
VI.
Whenever adultery is sought to be proved by the evidence of one witness, the
judge should ask himself if there are any circumstances in the nature of
corroboration, e.g., evidence of familiarities less than adultery, e.g., constant
association, a closer degree of friendship than is usually permissible etc.
VII.
The evidence of servants has always been regarded as untrustworthy, unless
corroborated by independent testimony, or unless they have without delay
reported the matters to which they speak.
VIII. The identity of the person alleged to have committed the offence, with the identity
of the respondent, or party to the marriage against whom the allegation is made,
should be established by the sworn testimony of someone able to speak to both
from first-hand knowledge.
IX.
Evidence in divorce suits being largely circumstantial, care should be taken to
investigate the history of the married life and the continued relations of the
contending parties so as to enable a judgment to be formed from the recorded
evidence as to the probability or otherwise, of the main allegations.
202
X.
A confession by a wife, contained as it usually is in a letter addressed to the
husband, requires to be considered with care. Proof of handwriting must, of
course, be given and, if misconduct is ought to be proved on the basis of the letter
alone, great caution should be exercised in accepting it, especially if it was written
in the presence of the husband or under his roof. In a case of this kind the letter
may have been procured by threats or may be wholly untrue and collusive.
Prudence suggests that, just as in number VI, surrounding circumstances should
carefully be considered.
XI.
The allegation that an Englishman has abandoned his domicile of origin and has
definitely and finally elected to adopt an Indian domicile is one which should be
strictly proved. The questions which will suggest themselves are, what relatives
has he in England, what property, what ―prospects and, on the other hand, what
are the inducement which have led him to spend the rest of his life in India and
when he formed that resolution. The real truth may be that this resolution was
formed when first he learnt about the domicile difficulty at the institution of the
suit and will be abandoned immediately on the termination of the suit.
It may be added that the presiding judge will find it of great service in his efforts
to probe the allegation made to adopt a skeptical attitude towards the evidence of either
side, and to follow it up with questions of his own until he is convinced of the truth of
one or the other.
G.L. No. 28/VIII h-6-1 dated 4th October, 1947

An extract from the High Court judgment in matrimonial reference no. 4 of 1949
is reproduced below for the guidance of subordinate courts:
 ―We have read the judgment of the learned District Judge and we are satisfied
upon the evidence that the finding at which he has arrived is correct. In these
circumstances we shall be prepared to confirm his decree were there in fact a
decree which did dissolve the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent. The
operative part of the decree in this case is in the following terms:

 ̳It is ordered that a decree nisi dissolving the petitioner's marriage with the
respondent be passed.'
―Apart from the fact that the decree made by a District Judge under section 14 of
the Act is not a decree nisi which can only be passed by the High Court under
section 16- that part of the decree to which we have referred does not purport to
dissolve the marriage at all, for instead of declaring the marriage dissolved it
merely say that a decree having that effect will, presumably at some future date, be
passed. This Court has on a number of occasions pointed out the necessity of the
decree being prepared strictly in accordance with the provisions of section 14, for
it is the decree of the District Court, and not the judgment of the learned District
Judge, which comes before this Court for confirmation.‖