9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (9) TMI 494X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we permit the appellants to pay sales tax levied/leviable during the period August 18, 1995 to March 5, 1996 in six equal installments, to be paid in each month commencing from October 1, 2002. If any of the appellants fails to pay any installment within two weeks of the same becoming due, it would be open to the concerned authority to collect the amount of tax due, in lump sum, in accordance with law. - Civil Appeal No. 7540-7557 of 1999, - - - Dated:- 10-9-2002 - SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND RUMA PAL JJ. Civil Appeal No. 640-643, Civil Appeal No. 943, Civil Appeal No. 944, Civil Appeal No. 1116, Civil Appeal No. 1034, Civil Appeal No. 2547, Civil Appeal No. 2548, Civil Appeal No. 2158, Civil Appeal No. 2159, Civil Appeal No. 2160, Civil Appeal No. 2161, Civil Appeal No. 2162, Civil Appeal No. 2163, Civil Appeal No. 2164, Civil Appeal No. 2165, Civil Appeal No. 2166, Civil Appeal No. 2374, Civil Appeal No. 2375, Civil Appeal No. 2376, Civil Appeal No. 2377, Civil Appeal No. 2378, Civil Appeal No. 2379, Civil Appeal No. 2380, Civil Appeal No. 2381, Civil Appeal No. 2382, Civil Appeal No. 3013, Civil Appeal No. 3014, Civil Appeal No. 3015, Civil Appeal No. 3016, Civil Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as unreasonable and arbitrary. 4.. Mr. A.K. Ganguli, the learned Senior Counsel, while adopting the argument of Mr. Vellapally pleaded that this Court could relieve the appellants of the burden of tax imposed on them on account of retrospectivity of the explanation as by virtue of sections 18, 18A and 29 of the Act the appellants could not have collected the tax from the consumers between August 18, 1995 and March 5, 1996 except on pain of penalty and prosecution. 5.. Mr. T.L.V. Iyer, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State, argued that after the clarifactory circular, issued by the Commissioner on June 19, 1988, was quashed by a learned single Judge of the Karnataka High Court on August 18, 1995 See [1996] 102 STC 404 (Sri Vinayaka Agency v. State of Karnataka)., the Legislature inserted the said explanation on March 5, 1996 clarifying the first proviso taking note of the judgment of the High Court; merely because the explanation is given retrospective effect, submits the learned counsel, it cannot be held illegal much less unconstitutional. Even when a liability by imposing burden of a tax is created for the first time retrospectively the legislation cannot be faul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ude tax'. " 8.. It was given retrospective operation from April 1, 1988 as on that date sub-section (1-A) was inserted in section 5 of the Act. A perusal of the said proviso would show that it deals with any point of sale other than the first point of sale and the last point of sale; in other words it deals with intermediary points of sale. For purpose of such a sale the proviso lays down the mode for determining taxable turnover which has to be arrived at by deducting the turnover of such goods on which tax has been levied under this sub- section at the immediately preceding point of sale. Having perused the definitions of "taxable turnover" and "turnover" in clauses (u-1) and (v), respectively, of section 2(1) of the Act, we are of the view that the words, in italic, mean that "the turnover" therein which qualifies for deduction is not the price of goods impregnated with tax component but excluding it. To put it precisely, it means, "the turnover without the tax component". Inasmuch as at the point of the first sale, it is the price of the goods on which tax will be levied and that will form the turnover of the seller; at the next point (intermediary point) of sale such turnove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng to be by way of tax under the Act nor shall a registered dealer collect any amount by way of tax or purporting to be by way of tax at a rate or rates exceeding the rate or rates at which he is liable to pay tax under the provisions of the Act. The prohibition in the above terms is reinforced by incorporating section 18A and providing penalty for collection of any amount in contravention of section 18. Further, section 29, which enumerates offences and penalties, includes in clause (g) of sub-section (2), collection of any amount by way of turnover tax or purporting to be by way of turnover tax in contravention of sub-section (3) of section 18. Such an offence is punishable with simple imprisonment which may extend to twelve months or with a fine which shall not be less than five thousand rupees but which may extend to twenty-five thousand rupees or with both and when the offence is a continuing one, with a daily fine not exceeding two hundred rupees during the period of continuance of the offence. The summary of the provisions, referred to above, shows that no unregistered dealer can pass on the burden of tax to the consumer and a registered dealer cannot collect any tax more ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
