Champatlal vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Y.V. Narayana, J.—This writ petition is filed seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring that rule 45(1-B) of the A.P. General Sales Tax Rules. 1957 (in short, "the Rules") as illegal, unconstitutional and ultra vires of the main provisions of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act (6 of 1957) and consequently to direct the respondents not to take any action against the petitioner as per the notice issued by the third respondent in Rc. No. 20/87, dated January 20, 1987.

The brief facts of the case are : The petitioner belongs to Marwadi community. He was born in Rajasthan State. He migrated to the State of Andhra Pradesh and settled in Vijayawada, Krishna district. The petitioner has been doing business in Vijayawada. He has been maintaining the accounts in Hindi by using Devanagari form of numericals in the books of accounts. The books of accounts maintained by him are being produced before the Income Tax, central excise and sales tax authorities for scrutiny. None of the authorities have raised any objection so far for maintaining the numericals in Marwadi language. The third respondent issued the impugned notice directing the petitioner to maintain his accounts using international numericals only, even though the description is being written in a language other than English. The said notice was received by the petitioner on January 24, 1987. The petitioner made a request on March 30, 1987 to the third respondent requesting him to drop the proceedings. Since the third respondent threatened the petitioner that coercive steps will be taken under the provisions of the APGST Act, if the impugned order is not followed, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking the above relief.

A counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents contending as follows. The respondent-authorities are not insisting the petitioner to maintain the accounts using international language; but directed the petitioner to adopt international numericals as per rule 45(1-B) of the Rules as they found it difficult to follow Devanagari numericals. It is further stated that the impugned notice is only a show cause notice, the petitioner would have filed his objections to the same before the respondent-authorities. The Government also, in its Memo No. 569/S1/87-2, Revenue, dated March 24, 1987, requested the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to issue necessary instructions to the Commercial Taxes Officers to see the provisions regarding the language and numericals to be adopted in maintaining the accounts by the dealers are implemented strictly. There are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

Sri V. S. R. Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that maintaining the accounts in Devanagari language is in consonance with section 25 of the APGST Act; so rule 45(1-B) of the Rules is violative of articles 14, 19(1)(a), (d), (e) and (g) of the Constitution of India; therefore the said rule is unconstitutional. In support of his contention he relied upon the decisions reported in Pyndah Venkatanarayana Vs. G.V. Sudhakar Rao and Others, , Dr. Pradeep Jain and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , V.N. Sunanda Reddy and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, . Pyndah Venkatanarayana Vs. G.V. Sudhakar Rao and Others, relates to the shape and form of numerals mentioned in rules 73(2) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. In that case this Court held that it may nevertheless be legitimate to think that the recognised or approved forms of numerals at all events must be used and the stress is not so much on the shape of the figure as on the figure itself which should be a recognised numeral and should be so marked as not to be mistaken for any figure other than (1) and that article 343 of the Constitution of India contemplates the use of both forms of numerals for certain official purposes. The facts of that case have no application to the present case as the shape and size of the figures used and the Rules specifically direct the use of international numericals in the accounts maintained by the dealers during their business transactions.

The other decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, i.e., Dr. Pradeep Jain and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, and V.N. Sunanda Reddy and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, have no application to the present case as the facts in those two cases are entirely different with the facts of the case on hand.

On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents contended that the rule 45(1-B) is in consonance with article 343 of the Constitution of India and also with section 25 of the APGST Act. It is further contended by the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents that the petitioner is using Devanagari numericals only in maintaining the accounts whereas he is using the international numericals in sale receipts and other forms. In support of his contention he relied on the decision reported in Rupani Brothers and Another Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Group III, Inspection Wing, Zone I, Madras and Another, .

It is to be seen that numericals cannot be treated as part of language as they stand apart from the language, when viewed with the meanings given by the dictionary. Even according to article 343 of the Constitution of India, the official language of the Union shall be Hindi in Devanagari script and the form of numerals to be used for the official purposes of the Union shall be the international form of Indian numerals, but not in Hindi or Devanagari script. It is also to be noted that the petitioner would not be handicapped when the prescribed numerals, i.e., international Indian numericals are insisted to be used in the maintenance of accounts by him. Moreover, the APGST Act enables the authorities to frame rules regarding the manner in which accounts are to be maintained. Therefore, in our view, rule 45(1-B) of the Rules is not in violation of articles 14, 19(1)(a), (d), (e) and (g) of the Constitution of India. We see no merits in the writ petition and it deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

Writ petition dismissed.