• ;; 1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 719 ' THE STATE OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER v. M/s. CHAKOBHAI GHELABHAI AND COMPANY (S. K. DAS, M. HIDAYATULLAH, K. c. DAS GUl'TA, J.C. SHAH a.nd N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.) Sales Tax-Sales tax autlwrities-Whether courts~Levy of fees on memorandum of appeal and application for revision-Whe- ther taxes-Legislative competence-Place where sale effected-Ques- tion of law o~ fact-Issue of one notice for several quarters-Legality -Orissa Sales Tax Act, z947 (Orissa I4 of I947), ss. 2(g), z2(5), 29(2)(s)-Orissa Sales Tax Rules, z947, rr. 20, 59-Government of India Act, z935 (25 & 26 Geo. 5, Ch. 42). Seventh Schedule, List II, Items I, 48, 54. The respondent firm, which had its headquarters in Madhya Pradesh and was, during the years 1948 to 1951, engaged in col- lecting bidi leaves from certain forest areas in Orissa and des- patching them to various destinations outside the State of Orissa, did not get itself registered as a dealer under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, and did not submit a return in spite of the notice issued to it. It was asked to show cause why a penalty should not be imposed under s. 12(5) of the Act. The assessing authority then proceeded to assess the tax to the best of its judgment and determined the taxable turnover for each of the twelve quarters, the first quarter ending on June 30, 1948, and the last quarter ending on March 31, 195r. A penalty of Rs. 500 for each quarter was also imposed. The respondent's appeal to the Assistant Collector of Sales Tax against the JJrders of assess- ment and penalty was dismissed, and the revision petition was rejected by the Collector of Commercial Taxes as having been filed out of time. One of the pleas taken before the appellate authority was that the respondent was not a dealer in Orissa inasmuch as the sales of bidi leave·s were not effected in Orissa, but at the hearing of the appeal it wa..admitted by the respond- ent's pleader that the sales were completed in Orissa. The High Court, on a writ petition filed by the respondent, set aside the the orders of assessment and penalty on the grounds, inter alia, (1) that the assessment orders were bad because of the repeal of the second proviso to s. 2(g) of the Act defining " sale ", by the Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950, (2) that the levy of fees on the memorandum of appeal and the application in revision on a graded scale under r. 59 read with s. 29(2)(s) of the Act amount- ed to the imposition of a tax which was beyond the competence of the State, and (3) that the notice issued nnder s. 12(5) of the Act was not in accordance with law, inasmuch as separate noti- ces were not issued for each quarter. 92 September 20 . Stall of Orissa v. CAahobhai Gh•l•bhai e.. Co. S. K. Das J. 720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1961] Held, (1) that the question as to where a sale was complet- ed depended on facts and was not a pure question of law and, therefore, the admission made by the respondent's pleader was binding on the respondent; and that as the admission brought the sales within s. 2(g) of the Act, it was unnecessary to consider the second proviso to s. 2(g) and the sales were liable to tax ; (2) that the sales-tax authorities including the Assistant Collector of Sales Tax and the Collector of Commercial Taxes, though they exercised quasi-judicial functions under the Act, were not courts in the strict sense of the term "Court " ; (3) that fees levied under r. 59 read with s.-29(2)(s) of the Act were not taxes but were imposed for services rendered by a governmental agency. Section 29(2)(s) was not' invalid on the ground of legislative incompetence and r. 59 did not go beyond what was permitted under that section; The Con1missianer, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v, Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Sttamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, [1954) S.C.R. 1005, relied on. (4) that the issue of one notice under s. 12(5) of the Act for several quarters was not contrary to law as the section makes refe.rence to a period which might consist of more than one quarter. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appea.1 No. 710of1957. Appea.l from the judgment a.nd order da.ted Septem- ber 5, 1955, of the Orise& High Court in 0. J.C. No. 92 of 1954. N. 0. Chatterjee, H.J. Umrigar a.nd T. M. Sen, for the a. ppella.n ts. J. M. Thakar a.nd J. B. Dadachanji for the respond- ents. R. Gopalakriahnan a.nd J. B. Dadachanji, for the Intervener. 1960. September 20. The Judgment of the Court wa.s delivered by S. K. D.+.s J.-This is a.n a.ppea.l on a. certificate granted by the High Court of Orissa.. The a.ppella.nts a.re the Sta.te of Orissa. a.nd the Collector of Commer- cia.l Ta.xes, Orissa.. The respondent is a. pa.rtnership firm ca.lied Messrs. Cha.kobha.i Ghela.bha.i a.nd Compa.ny dealing in 'bidi' lea.ves. The short fa.cts a.re these. The respondent firm ha.s its hea.dqua.rters in Ba.gbehera. in Ma.dhya. Pra.desh. 1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 721 During the years 1948 to 1951 it was engaged in '9 60 collecting 'bidi' leaves from certain forest areas in State of Orissa Orissa. The leaves so collected were made up into v. bundles and stored in the respondent's godowns in Chakobhai Orissa. They were then sold and despatched tp Ghelabhai .s. Co. various destinations outside the State of Orissa. The -- respondent did not get itself registered as a dealer 5· K. Das J. under the Orissa Sales Tax Act,, 1947 (Orissa Act XIV of 1947), hereinafter called the Act. On July 21, 1950; a notice was issued to the respondent by the Assist- ant Sales Tax Officer, Patna Circle, requiring it to submit a return in Form No.. IV showing separately the particulars of its turnover for each of the quarters commencing October, 1947, and upto June 30, 1950. The respondent .was also asked to•show cause why a penalty should not be imposed on it under s. 12(5) of the Act. To this notice the respondent sent a reply to the effect, substantially, that it carried on no selling business in Orissa and was, therefore under no liability to register itself as a dealer in Orissa or to pay sales tax under the ·Act. Thereafter, the respon- dent took no part in the assessment proceedings and made no appearance before the assessing authority exQept on June 30, 1951, when one of its partners Narvaram Popatbhai appeared and said tha.t the accounts were at Bagbehera and the despatches of . 'bidi' leaves from Orissa were mixed up with other despatches and, therefore, he was not in a position to give a correct account of the business in Orissa. It was admitted, however, that the 'bidi' leaves were collected in Orissa, were processed and manufactured for sale and then stored in godowus in Orissa; they were then sold and despatched to different customers outside Orissa.' The assessing authority held on the materials before it that the transfer of property in the 'bidi' leaves sold and despatched to customers as aforesaid was completed in Orissa and the respondent wilfully failed to get itself registered and to submit a return of its turnover. The assessing authority then proceeded to assess the tax to the best of its judgment and determined the taxable turnover to be Rs. 61,250 for each of the twelve quarters, the first quarter ending • 722 SUP.i<.EME COURT REPORTS [1961] on June 30, 1948, and the !&st quarter ending on 5101 , of Oms• March 31, 1951. It also imposed a penalty of Rs. 500 v. for each quarter. The orders of assessment were made Chakobhai on two dates-on July 4, 1951, for four quarters and G1"1abhai