Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Entry 94 of Schedule II(B), prior to its substitution by notification dated 21.01.2006, read as under:

"River sand and grit excluding (a) boulders and (b) grit and sand manufactured by stone crushers".

4. The said entry was substituted by notification dated 21.01.2006, pursuant to which Entry 94 of Schedule II (B) read as under:

"River sand, grit and boulders".

5. This entry was again substituted by notification dated 02.05.2013 and, after its substitution, the said Entry 94 of Schedule II (B) read as under:

"River sand and river bazri".

6. The petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, by way of Writ Petition (M/S) No. 727 of 2015, questioning the validity of the notification dated 02.05.2013, on the ground that classification of "river sand and river bazri", excluding "bazri from stone crushers"

from the ambit of Entry 94 of Schedule II (B), was unreasonable. By way of an amendment to the prayer in the Writ Petition, they sought a mandamus to declare the notification dated 02.05.2013 as discriminatory, ultra-vires, unconstitutional and illegal.

7. In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge has not declared the said notification, dated 02.05.2013, unconstitutional. He has examined the respondent-writ petitioner's contentions on facts, and has held that "river bazri" remains the same even after they are crushed by stone crushers. Prima facie the exercise undertaken by the learned Single Judge, of determining whether or not bazri, crushed by stone crushers, also fall within the ambit of Entry 94 of the Schedule II (B), even before these questions of fact were examined, in the first instance, by the assessing authority, is impermissible, as such determination of questions of fact falls outside the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

8. Ordinarily this Court, while examining the validity of the amendment to the Schedule of a Tax enactment, (which is a legislative exercise), would not take upon itself the task of determining whether the goods sold by the respondent-writ petitioner fall within the ambit of a particular entry or not, for these are all questions of fact which are required to be examined, in the first instance, by the assessing authority. It is also relevant to note that, despite a challenge to the validity of the notification, whereby said Entry was introduced, the learned Single Judge has not declared the notification dated 02.05.2013 ultra-vires Part III of the Constitution, and has confined his examination to the question whether bazri, crushed in the stone crushers of the respondent-writ petitioner, also fall within the ambit of Entry 94 of Schedule II(B) on par with "river bazri".