9911796707
TMI Blog1960 (11) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8,389-0-0. Exemption was claimed in respect of Rs. 2,71,635-14-0 on the ground that the assessee was not the first dealer after the import of goods into the State of Andhra liable to tax, and non-resident dealer being the first seller. The assessing authority, while disallowing the exemption, determined the net taxable turnover at Rs. 2,78,389-0-0 and the assessee was finally assessed to a tax of Rs. 1,460-8-6. An appeal was preferred to the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Guntur. But the appeal failed substantially. There was a further appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad. There it was contended that rule 4-A of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules may be struck down as being unconstitution ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise of the power conferred by subsections (4) and (5) of section 3 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act and section 19 of the said Act. This rule 4-A was introduced by G.O. Ms. 220, Finance (Commercial Taxes), dated 21st March, 1956. By para. 3 of Part 1 of the said G.O., it was provided that the amendments made in that part shall be deemed to have come into force on 1st November, 1955. The learned counsel for the petitioner-assessee conceded that he is the first seller in the State of Andhra after import of the goods into this State and that he is not exempt under section 3(3). Therefore, if rule 4-A in so far as it is made operative from 1st November, 1955, is valid, the assessee is liable to pay the sales tax on the sales effected by him ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aring that with effect from 9th June, 1948, the proceeds of sale of goods entered in column 2 of the Schedule annexed thereto shall not be included in the turnover of any dealer except at the point in the series of sales by successive dealers mentioned in column 4 thereof under the circumstances shown in column 3 thereof. It was also further declared that as and from 9th June, 1948, the rate of tax in respect of the turnover of the aforesaid goods shall be as entered in column 5 of the schedule. Then there followed the schedule. The question was whether the provision made in section 3-A of the Act and the orders passed by the Provincial Government in the notification dated 8th June, 1948, had to be construed to mean only that the actual sal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r to give the subordinate delegated legislation retrospective operation unless and until that power is expressly conferred by the parent enactment. The amendment effected in sub-rule (3) of rule 11-B of the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Rules, 1951, which was the rule in question in that case did not express that it was retrospective in effect. Therefore, the observation in the judgment of the learned judges in this case also is only an obiter. The question which has to be decided now did not at all arise for consideration in that case. In this case, rule 4-A which is the rule in question, is framed under the power conferred by section 19 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. Clause 5 of section 19 is as follows: "All rules made under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (a) of section 19 which supports the State Government to make rules with respect to "all matters expressly required or allowed by this Act to be prescribed." Therefore, in our view, the State Government has power to make rule 4-A to operate retrospectively from 1st November, 1955. Further, section 3(4) provides that the turnover shall be determined in accordance with such rules as may be "prescribed". So, the question is what is the meaning of the word "prescribed"? Does it impose a restriction on the rule-making authority confining its power to make a rule only for the future? This question has been considered by the Madras High Court in Guruviah Naidu v. State of Madras [1958] 9 S.T.C. 145. In that case, the validity of the amendment to r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceded by Sri Ranganathachari, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner is the first seller after the import of the goods into the State of Andhra and that he is not exempt from taxation under section 3(3) of the Act.. It therefore follows that the petitioner is liable to pay the tax as assessed by the Commercial Tax Officer which was substantially confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Guntur. The order of remand passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal for an enquiry into the question whether the outside dealer is exempt from taxation under section 3(3) is therefore unnecessary. We set aside the order of remand passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in Tax Appeal No. 617 of 1957 on its file and confi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
