9911796707
TMI Blog1960 (11) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her material not being cotton, made in mills, in which the count of warp yarn employed (excluding the border) is 17s or finer (whether single or folded)." It will be noticed that the additional tax levied under the provisions of the Amending Act XX of 1954 was in respect of mill products where the warp yarn employed was above 17s or finer. Cloths manufactured by power-looms are not specifically mentioned in the section. Prima facie they appear to have been excluded from the operation of the section. This Act was later amended by Act XL of 1954 which substituted the following in the place of the one above extracted: "Mill cloth (whether of silk, artificial silk, wool, flax, or any other material), which is not made wholly of cotton and in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g law. In order to relieve this hardship, the Government passed G.O. Ms. No. 275, Revenue, dated 19th January, 1957, whereby they waived the collection of the additional sales tax leviable in section 3(2) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act for the period from 23rd August, 1954, to 27th March, 1956. The relevant provision of the G.O. so far as it applies to the present case is that contained in clause (b) thereof. "(b) Cloth (other than handloom cloth woven on handlooms) whether silk, artificial silk, wool, flax or any other material, which is not made wholly of cotton, if the dealer adduces proof that the additional sales tax had not actually been collected on the ground that according to the manufacturer's invoices, the sale of the cloth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld not be open to the petitioner to claim it as of right before it. In that view it rejected his application. The petitioner appears to have filed earlier a petition to the Commercial Tax Officer claimiming relief under the G.O. The Commercial Tax Officer refused to entertain the petition on the ground that as the assessment had already become final, no question of relief could at all arise. There is an obvious fallacy in the view of the Commercial Tax Officer. It is because the assessment had become final the question of relief under the G.O. arose. He was therefore not right in rejecting the petitioner's claim on the ground that the assessment had become final. Not taking failure easily, the petitioner filed an application to the Board of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hose warp count was less than 17s. Act III of 1956 brought to tax both the above categories for the first time. Relief under the G.O. was granted to both of them. The Commercial Tax Officer in rejecting the claim for refund on the ground that the goods manufactured and sold were of a higher count than 17s, committed an error in that he ignored the fact that the power-loom products were not at all liable to tax under Act XX of 1954. As the G.O. gave him relief in regard to such goods his claim for refund could not be rejected on the ground that the cloth manufactured was above the count of 17s. I am of opinion that the argument is well-found. Implicit in the order of the Commercial Tax Officer is the view that there is no distinction between ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d be employment of machinery. I cannot agree. Mill cloth is a familiar variety of cloth and everybody knows what a mill is. In popular language, a power'-loom cloth is never associated with a mill cloth. I am therefore of the opinion that when section 2(b) of Act XX of 1954 enacted that mill cloth would be liable to additional tax, it did not include power-loom cloth. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the statement of objects and reasons for the enactment of Act III of 1956 to show that the legislature itself was alive to the distinction between the two. A section in an enactment cannot be construed in the light of the statement of objects and reasons. But it is a familiar principle of interpretation that in order to ascert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt in W.P. Nos. 832 to 834 of 1958 and a Bench of which I was a member rejected that contention. When the Board of Revenue directed the Commercial Tax Officer to dispose of the application of the petitioner for relief under the terms of the G.O. the officer should be held to have been entrusted with a public duty and if he, by an erroneous view, declined to perform that duty it would be open to this Court to correct it under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned Additional Government Pleader advanced a further contention namely that the Government Order was only an administrative direction, and on the analogy of the cases decided under the Motor Vehicles Act, he contended that a disregard or a wrong construction of such administrativ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
