# Chokltaui v. Stak of Bi/tar, A,I.R. 1961 S,C. 1708, applied

- **Citation:** [1962] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 967
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1962
- **Case number:** Civil Appt>al No. 3i!l of 1961
- **Bench:** ·J.L. Kapur, M. Iiidayatullah, Raghubar Dayal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/chokltaui-v-stak-of-bi-tar-a-i-r-1961-s-c-1708-applied-2364
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Sales Tax-Appeal from order of Board of Revenue-No
A 71peal from ordei· of High Oourt.--Assesaet if can agitate the
correctness of deci•ion of Board by Special Leave-Remedy open
lo assessre wlien que .. tion asked for, not replied by the Board to
Tligh Court-Appeal not maintainabk where breach of Rule of
Natural. Just·ice or violation of principle of law not shown-Bihar
Sales Tax Act, 1947 (Bihar 19 of 1947), ss. 6,24,25,28.
The appellant, a Railway contractor, having Refresh·
ment Rooms and Tea Stalls at various stations, was registered
as a dealer under the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947. He being
aggrieved bv the assessment for the year 1950-51 made by the
Sales Tax Officer took the usual .appeals to the Sales Tax
Authorities and after the appeals were rejected he took a
revision under s. 24 of the Act before the Board of. Revenue
Bihar which was dismissed. He then applied under s. 25 of
the Act to refer six questions of law to the High Court.
The
Board referred only one question to the High Court.
The
High Court after reframing the question answered it in the
negative against him.
Against the order of the Board of
Revenue the appellant brought an appeal by special leave to
the Supreme Court but he did not appeal against the judgment
and order of the High Court.
Shah J.
J96B
F•b•UJJry 2.
1962
M /s. Ballablu:los
..1garu·aJ
"·
' TM- Stal< nf Bihar
'"""' J.
968 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
Held, that an as.cssee is not entitled to agitate the
correctness or otherwise of the decision given by the Tribunal
in regard to the questions which were agitated before the
Hi,~h Cn11rt and were decided against him and against which
no appeal wcs brought to the Supreme Court.
Held, further, that if any question on which the 1Wessee
wanted a reference to the High Court was not referred, it was
open to the a'5esscc to apply to the High Court for a reference
under s, 28 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947.
H•'d, also, that it has not been shown that there was
any such breach of the rules of natural justice or violation of
any principle of law which would be a good ground for our
interferrnce direct with the orders of the Board of Revenue in
an appti1l under Art. 136 of the Constitution,
Chimmonlal Ram,.hwarlal v, Commi.i&ioMr of lncomt Tar
(Centralj, Calcutta AJ.R. 1960 S.C. 280 and Chandi PrtllJad
Chokltaui v. Stak of Bi/tar, A,I.R. 1961 S,C. 1708, applied.
Crv1L APPELLATE JurusnrcTION: Civil Appt>al
No. 3i!l of 1961.
Appeal by special le&ve from the Re11olution
<lated April 21,
195~, of the Board of Revt-nut',
Uihar Patna in Revision Case No. 706of1953.
S.K. Kapur and K.K. Jain, for the appellants.
D.P. Singh, R. K. Garg, M.K. Ramamurthi and
S.C. AgaT'W<ll, for tho respondents.
1962. February, 2.-The
Judgmtlnt of the
Court was delivl·red by
luPUR, J.-This appeal by Special Leave
against the c.rder of tho Board of Revenue, Bihar,
relates to the assessment for the year 1950,51 of SaleA
Tax of the appel111.nt under the Bihar Sales Tax Act,
194i (Act 19 of 1947), hereinafter called the 'Act'.
The appellant was a railway caterer, who had
Refreshment Rooms and Tea Stalls at various
Railway Stations. He sold various kinds of eatables,
cigarettes, betels, milk, fruits and tea at railway
etatio118.
He was registered as a. dealer under the
Aot 11nd had been carrying on busineBB for a fairly
long timti. His case was that as it was difficult for
him tu maintain accounts in regard to ea.tablee,
'
2 S.C.R. HUPREME COUB,T B,EPORT6
969
some of which were taxable and others were not,
he made representation in
HH4 to the Bihar
G1wernment for same arrangement so that the diffi011lty in keeping diadrent set;s of accourit would be
obviated. As a result of his representation the
Bihar Government by a letter June 5, 1945, itF;reed
that the appellant's taxable turnover in Bihar
would be taken to be 66 2/3 % of the gross turnover
d1iring the quarter ending December 31, I 944, and
that this perc11ntage might
be
revised
after
December 31, 1945. As a result of this let

## Text

'
'
28.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
967
within the Province. Tax in respect of the ea.le of
1962
fibre by the assessees under tne disputed transacRamalingam.,, Co.
tions was therefore not exigible under the Madras
v.
General Sales Tax Act.
Tiu Stat• of Madras
The appeal is therefore allowed : the decree
of the High Court is set aside, and the decree of
the trial Court is restored with costs in this Court
and the High Court.
Appeal allowe.d.
M/S. BALLABHDAS AGARWAL
"'
THE STATE OF BIHAR
(·J.L. KAPUR, M. IIIDAYATULLAH and RAGHUBAR
DAYAL, JJ.)
Sales Tax-Appeal from order of Board of Revenue-No
A 71peal from ordei· of High Oourt.--Assesaet if can agitate the
correctness of deci•ion of Board by Special Leave-Remedy open
lo assessre wlien que .. tion asked for, not replied by the Board to
Tligh Court-Appeal not maintainabk where breach of Rule of
Natural. Just·ice or violation of principle of law not shown-Bihar
Sales Tax Act, 1947 (Bihar 19 of 1947), ss. 6,24,25,28.
The appellant, a Railway contractor, having Refresh·
ment Rooms and Tea Stalls at various stations, was registered
as a dealer under the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947. He being
aggrieved bv the assessment for the year 1950-51 made by the
Sales Tax Officer took the usual .appeals to the Sales Tax
Authorities and after the appeals were rejected he took a
revision under s. 24 of the Act before the Board of. Revenue
Bihar which was dismissed. He then applied under s. 25 of
the Act to refer six questions of law to the High Court.
The
Board referred only one question to the High Court.
The
High Court after reframing the question answered it in the
negative against him.
Against the order of the Board of
Revenue the appellant brought an appeal by special leave to
the Supreme Court but he did not appeal against the judgment
and order of the High Court.
Shah J.
J96B
F•b•UJJry 2.
1962
M /s. Ballablu:los
..1garu·aJ
"·
' TM- Stal< nf Bihar
'"""' J.
968 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
Held, that an as.cssee is not entitled to agitate the
correctness or otherwise of the decision given by the Tribunal
in regard to the questions which were agitated before the
Hi,~h Cn11rt and were decided against him and against which
no appeal wcs brought to the Supreme Court.
Held, further, that if any question on which the 1Wessee
wanted a reference to the High Court was not referred, it was
open to the a'5esscc to apply to the High Court for a reference
under s, 28 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947.
H•'d, also, that it has not been shown that there was
any such breach of the rules of natural justice or violation of
any principle of law which would be a good ground for our
interferrnce direct with the orders of the Board of Revenue in
an appti1l under Art. 136 of the Constitution,
Chimmonlal Ram,.hwarlal v, Commi.i&ioMr of lncomt Tar
(Centralj, Calcutta AJ.R. 1960 S.C. 280 and Chandi PrtllJad
Chokltaui v. Stak of Bi/tar, A,I.R. 1961 S,C. 1708, applied.
Crv1L APPELLATE JurusnrcTION: Civil Appt>al
No. 3i!l of 1961.
Appeal by special le&ve from the Re11olution
<lated April 21,
195~, of the Board of Revt-nut',
Uihar Patna in Revision Case No. 706of1953.
S.K. Kapur and K.K. Jain, for the appellants.
D.P. Singh, R. K. Garg, M.K. Ramamurthi and
S.C. AgaT'W<ll, for tho respondents.
1962. February, 2.-The
Judgmtlnt of the
Court was delivl·red by
luPUR, J.-This appeal by Special Leave
against the c.rder of tho Board of Revenue, Bihar,
relates to the assessment for the year 1950,51 of SaleA
Tax of the appel111.nt under the Bihar Sales Tax Act,
194i (Act 19 of 1947), hereinafter called the 'Act'.
The appellant was a railway caterer, who had
Refreshment Rooms and Tea Stalls at various
Railway Stations. He sold various kinds of eatables,
cigarettes, betels, milk, fruits and tea at railway
etatio118.
He was registered as a. dealer under the
Aot 11nd had been carrying on busineBB for a fairly
long timti. His case was that as it was difficult for
him tu maintain accounts in regard to ea.tablee,
'
2 S.C.R. HUPREME COUB,T B,EPORT6
969
some of which were taxable and others were not,
he made representation in
HH4 to the Bihar
G1wernment for same arrangement so that the diffi011lty in keeping diadrent set;s of accourit would be
obviated. As a result of his representation the
Bihar Government by a letter June 5, 1945, itF;reed
that the appellant's taxable turnover in Bihar
would be taken to be 66 2/3 % of the gross turnover
d1iring the quarter ending December 31, I 944, and
that this perc11ntage might
be
revised
after
December 31, 1945. As a result of this letter,
the appellant did not keep separate accounts for
taxable and non-tnxahln itums and for some of the
quarters s11bs<>qnent to f.h1lse mentioned in the letter
above referrerl to were also taxed according to the
arrangement contained in that letter. For
the
period April I, 1950, to llfareh 31, 1951, the gross
turnover was Rs. 11,16,270-11-0 and the appellant
claime<l tha,t h!l he asses;r:d at 66 2/3 % of that
amount ; but th0 Bales Tax Officer tiLxed him on the
total gro~8 tumovor except for the usual rebate of
4% allowed in such· cases.
He submitted th~,t in
this turnover there were induded tax-free articles
such as fresh milk, meat, fidh, green vegetables etc.,
which were exempt from Sales tax under s. 6 of the
Act. His submission was that the excess amount
assessed was Rs. 11,416-15-0. Against this order he
took the usual appeals to the Sales Tax Authorities
and after the appeals were rejected, he took a
revision under s. 24 of the Act before the Board of
Revenue. Bihar, "here also he was unsuccessful.
Under s. 25 of the Act he applied for referring 6
questions of law to the High Court and those
questions were as follows :-
(i)
Whether upon the true construction of
the agreement of 1945 between the
State Government and
the
assessee
which ha<l beea acted upon and not
reviewed, the Department waa legally
entitled to tax petitioner on his gross
1962
M/s. BaUabkdaa
Aga1wal ..
The State of B,har
Kqpur .1.
IHI
MI•· JMl/d/11/IU
.41....i
••
n. Sloll ef Bilw
E•lfd'I.
P70 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS (1962] SUPP.
turnover instead of 66 2/3 % of the
same?
(ii) Whether Member, Board of Revenue,
having held that "in the oircumstanoes
the petitioner had prima f acie bona fide
grounds for his belief that the arrangement which the Department had entered
into, would continue" could legally hold
that the petitioner was not entitled to be
asaessed in terms of the said arrangement?
(iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances
of the cs.se, it ia open to the Department
to challenge
the
continuance of the
arrangement arrived at between the State
Government and the petitioner especi·
ally so when the State Government
by its own acts or omissions misled the
petitioner into maintaining his accounts
in a manner prejudicial to the petitioner's
claim for deductions on account of sale of
tax free goods during tho period ?
(iv) Whether in tho facts and circumstances
of the case, the petitioner was entitled to
tile entire deduction on account of sale of
meat and fish in terms of Notification
No. 5564 Ft. dated 30.3.49 under section
6 of the Bihar Sales Act. 194 7 ?
(v) Whether the Member Board of Revenue
having held that meat and fish mentioned
in N oti.fication No. 5564 Ft. dated 30-3-49
under section 6 of the Bihar Sales Tax,
Act. 1947, included boiled meat and fish
and cold meat and fish, could legally hold
that meat and fish cooked otherwise were
not covered in the terms of said notification?
'
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
971
(vi) Whether in terms of the Notification
No. 5564 Ft. dated 30-3-49 cold meat and
fish and boiled meat and fish could be
distinguished from other preparllition of
meat and fish ?
But the Board of Revenue referred the following
question to the High Court under s. 6 :-
"Whether the following forms of meat and
fish are covered by Notification No. 5564 Ft.,
dated 30-3-49, issued under section 6 of the
Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947?
(i) Raw (i.e. uncooked in any way) meat or
fish.
(ii) Boiled meat and fish, cooled or uncooled,
meant for sale or consumption outside
the petitioner's premises.
(iii) Fish or meat, which has been boiled or
cooked in some other way served as separate or part of a dish outside the petitioner's premises as separate dishes or
part of a menu.
(iv) Fish or meat, which has been boiled or
cooked in some other way, served as
separate dil:lhes or part of a dish outside
the petitioner's premises."
- The High Court reframed the question as follows :-
"Whether the petitioner was entitled to
exemption under Notification No. 5564 Ft.,
dated 30th ~arch, 1949, issued under. section
6 of the Bihar Sales Act, 1947 with regard to
the sales of the preparations of, meat and fish
e.g., meat curry and fish curry served as
separate dishes, or as part of the menu, at
lunch or dinner, at the petitioner's premises
or outside ?"
and answered it against the appellant. It is against
the order of the Board of Revenue that the appellant has come in appeal by special leave but has
196B
M / s. Ballabhda1
Agarw41
v.
Th4 Slak of Bihor
Kapur J.
1962
JI f •. /lallabild OI
.igarwal
v.
Tlw Stall oJ Bilw
KaprwJ,
972 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962). SUPP.
not appeared against the judgmt>nt and order of
the B 1gh Court.
Thi" Court in M/s. Chi.mnonl<ill Ram.e.~lnmrlnll v.
Com111i->sioner of Income-tax ( Centrnl) Clllc.utt11{ 1) held
that in <"ll.Set· whPre a reference is made to the High
Court ancl tho appeal is brought only against the
order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal thPn
the 8upreme Court, if it intl'rferNl, would in fact be
SC'tting aside the judgmont of the High Court without
there being an appeal to this Court, and that this
Court cculd not bypafs the normal proreduro which
was to l.io adopted for tho purpose. In a later
.Judgm••nt i11 Charuli Pra.sad Cho!.:hani v, Strife of
Bihar(') a Rimilnr view was taken that as the assessco
had nut obtained 8pocial Leave in resywct. of any of
the orders pasROd by the High Court un'.ler s. 2:;
thos" onltJrs became final arid
binding and the
lB:!essce could not he allowed to bypass or ~o behind
1 hu or<l· rs of tho High Court and such exorcise
woulrl b" particularly inadvisable in a cas·> whero
tho result may be a conflict of the rlecision •Jf two
courts of competent jurisdiction, which was e<Jntrary
to the oliject of ss. 23, 24 all(! 25 of the Act. In
this view of the law the appellant i~ not entitled to
agitate tho corrcctnrsH or othcrwiso of the rlccision
given by the Tribunal in rcganl to the questionH
which wo agitflted before t.ho High Court and were
decido<f against the appellant anr! ag:i.inst which no"
appeal h:J.11 been brought.
But he submit:i that there arc three other
questions which also aride, and on which the sppell·
ant wanted a reference to Lhe High Cvurt. I.Jut
whioh W!ll'tl not referred. It was open to tho
appt•llant to apply to the High Court for u. reference
under s. :!5. That the appellant did not do, and iL
has not been shown that there was any such hreach
111
A.LR. 19"0 S. C. 280.
(2) A.l.R. 1961 S.C. 1708,
-
'
"
2. S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
973
of the rules of natural justice or violation of any
principle oflaw which would be a good ground for
011r interference direct with the orders of the
Board of Revenue in an appeal under Art. 136 of
the Constitution.
In our opinion the appeal is without force and
is dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
THAKUR NARWAR SINGH
v.
THE STATE OF MABHYA PRADESH
(J.L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH and RAGHUBAR
DAYAL, JJ.)
Criminal Tria/,-Offences committed in . Princely Bt,at,e
prior to merger with Iwrlian Dominion-If and when the Indian
Penal Code applicable to such offences-Madhya Bharat Ordinance No. 1of1948-Part B 8t,ates (Laws) Act, 1951
(~ qf
1951) •. 6.
The appellant had committed certain offences in the
State of Jhabua 'in 1948, when the Jhabua State was not a
part of Dominion of India.
He was tried in 1955 under the
J ndian Penal Code, for the offences committed in the erstwhile State of Jhabua in 1948.
The question was whether
the appellant could be tried in 1955 under the Indian Penal
Code for offences committed in 1948 in the erstwhile State of
Jhabusa.
The Raja of Jhabua State by a notification had made
iipplicable amongst other laws the Penal Code of India to the
,
State of Jhabua. After Jhabua State became part of the State
of Madhy~ Bharat, the Rajpramukh by Ordinance No. I of
1948 continued the laws already in force in State of Jhabua.
The Part B States (Laws) Act 1951 (3 of 1951) s. 6 while
repealing all the existing laws of the State inter alia saved the
laws dealing with any peoality, forfeiture or pu.nishmeot
incurred in respect of any offence committed against any law
repealed.
Held, in 1948, when the offences were committed the
..
196%
i\ 1 / s. Ballabhdas
Agarwal
v.
Tiu Slate of Bihar
Kapur J.
F.~t;ruary 2