9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (3) TMI 234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pril, 1969, of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench. The facts leading to this appeal are brief. The respondents are the owners of Jaora Sugar Mills situated at Jaora in the earlier State of Madhya Bharat. The erstwhile State of Jaora merged in the State of Madhya Bharat. After the merger the Madhya Bharat Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1948, came into force. By a notification No. 5163/XXX(49) dated 5th September, 1949, the Madhya Bharat Government in exercise of the powers vested under the said Act included "sugar " in the list of articles as an essential commodity. By another notification No. 5166/XXX(49) dated the 5th September, 1949, the Madhya Bharat Government delegated its powers to issue orders under the sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... overnment in the definition of essential commodities given in the Act by including sugar therein was against the law, that the Director of Civil Supplies had no authority before 6th September, 1949, to issue the Sugar Control Order, 1949, which had been issued on 5th September, 1949; that the State Government or the Director of Civil Supplies, Madhya Bharat, had no power under the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act and the Sugar Control Order to impose a levy styled as "Sugar Fund " and to recover the same; that the levy and collection of tax/impost styled as "Sugar Fund" by the Director of Civil Supplies being violative of article 265 of the Constitution, was illegal and invalid; that the provisions of Sugar Control Order, 1949, did ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpost was not intended to augment general revenues of the State but was meant for a special purpose, i.e., for creating a fund which could be utilised for augmenting the production of sugarcane in the State so that the supply of sugar might be increased. The High Court observed that legislative competence was necessary for such imposition irrespective of the fact whether the impost was intended to augment general revenues of the State or for a special purpose, i.e., for creating a fund for augmenting the production of sugar. It further held that article 277 of the Constitution only saves such taxes, duties, cesses or fees which immediately before the commencement of the Constitution were being lawfully levied by the Government of any State ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... articular purchasers can recover hereafter from the plaintiffs whatever they had collected in excess of the ex factory sale price on the ground that it need not be determined in this case. Feeling aggrieved the State, has come up in appeal. It vainly tried to support its stand that the recovery of Rs. 50,000 from the respondents was perfectly lawful and proper and there was no discrimination as contemplated by article 14 of the Constitution. On the question of refund of the amount to the plaintiffs-respondents reliance was placed on Orient Paper Mills Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1961] 12 STC 357 (SC); [1962] 1 SCR 549. In that case the appellants who were registered dealers under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, used to collect sales tax from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It, however, transpired that many of the traders had themselves recovered the excess percentage from the next purchasers. It was held that to the extent the traders had paid out of their own, they were entitled to keep them, but not where they had in turn collected from elsewhere. In Newabganj Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India [1976] 1 SCR 803 this Court in a similar situation devised a new procedure to deal with a new situation where equity demanded redistribution but procedural expensiveness and cumbersomeness effectively thwarted legal action. It directed the Registrar of the High Court to receive and dispose of claims from the ultimate consumers for excess price paid on proper proof, out of the security money. In Sales Tax Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the refund of licence fee by the market committee to dealers, who have already passed on the burden of such fee to the next purchaser of the agricultural produce and who want to unjustly enrich themselves by obtaining the refund from the market committee. Section 23A in truth, recognises the consumer-public who have borne the ultimate burden as the persons who have really paid the amount and so entitled to refund of any excesss fee collected and therefore, directs the market committee representing their interests to retain the amount. It has to be in this form because it would, in practice, be a difficult and futile exercise to attempt to trace the individual purchasers and consumers who ultimately bore the burden. It is really a law retu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
