SMT. UJJAM BAI versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

SMT. UJJAM BAI versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

A bona fide assessment or levy of tax by a competent authority under a valid law, following prescribed procedure, does not give rise to a question of enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 32, even if based on misconstruction of the statute or notification. The proper remedies are appeal or, for an error apparent on the face, Article 226; Article 32 is not attracted unless jurisdiction or constitutional validity is in issue.

Parties
Petitioner: Smt. Ujjam Bai; Respondent: State of Uttar Pradesh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
28 April 1962
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution / Decision on Merits and Maintainability; Dismissed
Outcome
Writ petition dismissed.
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Fundamental Rights, Sales Tax, Jurisdiction of Quasi Judicial Authorities, Article 19(1)(g), Article 32, Misconstruction of Statutes and Notifications
Constitutional Law Taxation Law Enforcement of Fundamental Rights Sales Tax Jurisdiction of Quasi Judicial Authorities Article 19(1)(g) Article 32 Misconstruction of Statutes and Notifications

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Smt. Ujjam Bai

Petitioner

State of Uttar Pradesh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution / Decision on Merits and Maintainability; Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an order of assessment made under a valid taxing statute is open to challenge under Article 32 on the sole ground that it is based on a misconstruction of a provision of the Act or a notification.
  2. 2 Whether the validity of such an order can be questioned in a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi

A bona fide assessment or levy of tax by a competent authority under a valid law, following prescribed procedure, does not give rise to a question of enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 32, even if based on misconstruction of the statute or notification. The proper remedies are appeal or, for an error apparent on the face, Article 226; Article 32 is not attracted unless jurisdiction or constitutional validity is in issue.

Court Disposition

Writ petition dismissed.

Orders

  • Writ Petition No. 711 of 1959 is dismissed; parties to bear their own costs.
  • Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 1349 of 1961 for restoration of Civil Appeal No. 572 of 1960 is also dismissed; parties to bear their own costs.