A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE
The Supreme Court of India in Seth Premchand Satramdas v. The State of Bihar (1950) SCR 799 examined the maintainability of an appeal under Clause 31 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court against an order refusing to direct the Board of Revenue to refer a case to the High Court under Section 21(3) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1944. The Court held that such an order is not a final order, nor is it passed in the exercise of the High Court’s original or appellate jurisdiction, and thus is not appealable under Clause 31. The case delves into the advisory nature of High Court decisions under this provision and clarifies the limitations on appellate review. It disapproved the contrary view of the Lahore High Court in Feroze Shah Kaka Khel v. Income-Tax Commissioner, Punjab, reinforcing the advisory role of High Courts in tax matters under similar statutory schemes.
Keywords: Letters Patent Appeal, Final Order, Bihar Sales Tax Act, Advisory Jurisdiction, Supreme Court of India, Section 21(3), Original Jurisdiction, Appellate Jurisdiction, Tax Assessment, Penalty Proceedings.
B) CASE DETAILS
i) Judgement Cause Title:
Seth Premchand Satramdas v. The State of Bihar
ii) Case Number:
Civil Appeal No. 61 of 1950 (Earlier Federal Court Appeal No. 71 of 1948)
iii) Judgement Date:
30th November, 1950
iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India
v) Quorum:
Justice Saiyid Fazl Ali, Justice B.K. Mukherjea, and Justice Chandrasekhara Aiyar
vi) Author:
Justice Saiyid Fazl Ali
vii) Citation:
(1950) SCR 799
viii) Legal Provisions Involved:
-
Section 21(3) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1944
-
Clause 31 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court
ix) Judgments overruled by the Case (if any):
Disapproved Feroze Shah Kaka Khel v. Income-Tax Commissioner, Punjab (AIR 1931 Lah. 138)
x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects:
Constitutional Law, Taxation Law, Administrative Law, Appellate Procedure.
C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT
The case concerned the interpretation of appellate jurisdiction under the Letters Patent and whether an appeal lay from an order passed by the Patna High Court under Section 21(3) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act. The High Court had refused to direct the Board of Revenue to refer a question of law to it. The appellant sought to appeal this refusal to the Federal Court (later replaced by the Supreme Court). The central issue revolved around the advisory jurisdiction of High Courts under taxation statutes, and whether such decisions could be treated as final orders capable of being appealed under the Letters Patent. This case clarified the legal position by reinforcing that orders under such statutory schemes are not final in the required legal sense.
D) FACTS OF THE CASE
The appellant, Seth Premchand Satramdas, was a contractor engaged in significant civil works for the Central Public Works Department and East Indian Railway. He was deemed a “dealer” under the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1944, which imposed obligations on dealers whose annual turnover exceeded ₹5,000.
He registered under Section 7 of the Act on 21st December 1944. On 8th October 1945, the Sales Tax Officer issued a notice alleging wilful failure to register and proposed imposition of tax and a penalty under Section 10(5). Despite adjournments, the appellant ultimately failed to appear, and he was assessed with a tax liability of ₹4,526-13-0 along with a penalty of 1.5 times that amount.
He appealed to the Commissioner and later filed for revision before the Board of Revenue, both of which failed. He then requested the Board to refer questions of law to the High Court under Section 21, which the Board refused. His subsequent application to the High Court to compel a reference was also rejected. Although the High Court initially granted leave to appeal based on the precedent set in the Lahore High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court later found this appeal unsustainable.
E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED
i) Whether an appeal lies under Clause 31 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court from an order under Section 21(3) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act.
ii) Whether the High Court’s refusal to require the Board of Revenue to state a case is a “final order.”
iii) Whether such an order is passed in the exercise of appellate or original jurisdiction.
F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
i) The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that
The appellant argued that the High Court’s order refusing to require the Board of Revenue to state a case was a final order within the meaning of Clause 31 of the Letters Patent. They relied heavily on the Full Bench decision of the Lahore High Court in Feroze Shah Kaka Khel v. Income-Tax Commissioner, Punjab (AIR 1931 Lah 138) and cited its implicit acceptance by the Privy Council in the appeal from that case. The appellant further contended that since the High Court adjudicated on a substantial legal issue involving fiscal liability, its order should be appealable. The grant of the certificate under Clause 31 also strengthened the claim that the appeal was maintainable.
G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
i) The counsels for Respondent submitted that
The State of Bihar challenged the maintainability of the appeal, asserting that the High Court’s order was not a final order. The respondent argued that the High Court merely expressed an advisory opinion, which lacked binding force until acted upon by the Board of Revenue. It did not finally dispose of any rights or obligations between the parties. Further, it was neither passed in appellate jurisdiction (as no appeal was before the court) nor in original jurisdiction, since the High Court’s involvement came via a statutory mandate and not through an originating suit or petition.
H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS
i) Section 21(3) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1944:
Empowers the High Court to require the Board of Revenue to state a case upon refusal. The High Court’s decision therein is advisory, and it forwards its opinion to the Board for final decision.
ii) Clause 31 of the Letters Patent, Patna High Court:
Allows appeals to the Federal Court (now Supreme Court) from any final judgment, decree, or order of the High Court in original or appellate jurisdiction.
I) JUDGEMENT
a. RATIO DECIDENDI
i) The Court held that the order under Section 21(3) is neither a final order nor one made in exercise of the High Court’s original or appellate jurisdiction. The High Court’s function under Section 21 is purely advisory, and its opinion does not bind the parties. Therefore, an appeal under Clause 31 does not lie from such an order.
The Court approved earlier decisions like Sri Mahanth Harihar Gir v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa (AIR 1941 Pat 225) and applied the reasoning in Tata Iron and Steel Co. v. Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay (50 IA 212), where the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council emphasized the consultative character of such proceedings. The Court found the Lahore view incorrect and disapproved it.
b. OBITER DICTA
i) The Court commented that while the sales tax authorities likely misapplied Section 10(5) by penalizing the appellant despite valid registration, that issue was not subject to review in the present appeal. The High Court could not adjudicate the merits of the penalty in a proceeding limited to determining whether a case should be stated.
c. GUIDELINES
-
An order under Section 21(3) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act is not final under Clause 31 of Letters Patent.
-
Such an order is not passed in original or appellate jurisdiction.
-
The High Court acts in a consultative capacity under the Act.
-
The opinion of the High Court under Section 21 does not bind the parties directly.
-
No appeal lies to the Supreme Court from such an order.
J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS
The Supreme Court’s decision in this case significantly shaped the interpretation of appellate provisions in taxation statutes. It clarified that decisions under similar statutory frameworks where the High Court acts not as a court of record deciding a dispute, but in a consultative/advisory role, are not final and hence not appealable. This precedent has since been invoked in matters involving income-tax, sales tax, and other fiscal legislations where reference mechanisms to High Courts exist. The judgment reinforces the distinction between adjudicatory and advisory functions, restricting appeals only to those orders that directly alter or determine the legal rights of parties.
K) REFERENCES
a. Important Cases Referred
-
Sri Mahanth Harihar Gir v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa, AIR 1941 Pat 225
-
Tata Iron and Steel Co. v. Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay, 50 I.A. 212
-
Feroze Shah Kaka Khel v. Income-Tax Commissioner, Punjab, AIR 1931 Lah 138
-
In re Knight and the Tabernacle Permanent Building Society [(1892) 2 Q.B. 613]
-
AIR 1933 PC 198 – Privy Council decision on Lahore case appeal
b. Important Statutes Referred
-
Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1944, especially Sections 4, 7, 10(5), 21(3)
-
Clause 31 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court
