9911796707
TMI Blog1956 (4) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal petition, numbered as Case No. 808 of 1950 in the Commissioner's Court, is enclosed (Exhibit B). The learned Commissioner of the Patna Division, after hearing the parties, dismis- sed the appeal, except to the extent allowed in para 1(4) of his order. The Commissioner's order, dated 7th June, 1952, is enclosed (Exhibit C). 4.. The assessee then came up in revision before the Board of Revenue, Bihar, by a petition filed on 20th August, 1952. The petition before the Board is enclosed (Exhibit D). The Board after hearing the parties rejected the petition subject to further enquiry regarding the liability of the petitioners, either partly or wholly to pay tax on the despatches of paper for the period to 1st October, 1948. The Board's ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the provisions of the Bihar Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1948, giving retrospective effect to the enhanced rate of tax with effect from 1st October, 1948, have been validly enacted? (3) Whether the amendment introduced by the Bihar Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1948, authorising levy of sales tax on sales of goods manufactured in Bihar, wherever the sale takes place is valid, legal and within the competence of the Bihar Legislature. Ramanugrah Prasad, for the petitioner (the assessee). Lachman Saran Sinha, for the opposite party (the State). RAMASWAMI and RAJ KISHORE PRASAD, JJ.-In this case the Board of Revenue has acted under section 25(2) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act and has submitted the following questions of law for the opinion of the H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 2(h) and as constituting part of the taxable turnover of the registered dealer. This legal position was not controverted by Mr. Lachman Saran Sinha, who appears on behalf of the Government Advocate. Applying, therefore, the principle of the decision in Messrs Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar(1), we hold that the first question should be answered against the State of Bihar and in favour of the assessee. We hold that the inclusion in the gross turnover of the assessee of the amount realised as sales tax in the period 1st of October, 1948, to 31st of March, 1949, is not legal or valid. The second question raised in this case is whether the provisions of the Bihar Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, that is Bihar Act VI of 1949, giving r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e sale takes place, was legally valid and within the competence of the Bihar Legislature. It was con- ceded by Mr. Ramanugrah Prasad, who appears on behalf of the asses- see, that this point also is concluded by the authority of the same decision, namely in Messrs Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar(1). The identical question of law was the subject matter of consideration in that case and it was held by the Division Bench that the fact that the goods are manufactured in Bihar constitutes a sufficient territorial 'nexus' or connection which confers jurisdiction upon the Provincial Legislature to impose the tax. It was pointed out that location of the situs of goods has a real and pertinent connection to the transaction of sale and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
