1967 (3) TMI 92

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... anjavur, along with a certain other officer on 8th October, 1959, and certain secret accounts in Gujarati language were recovered. They are claimed to relate to the years 1954-55 to 1959-60 and transactions relating to the assessee's business. On a scrutiny of the accounts a further turnover of Rs. 5,63,053.42 was discovered for the year in question, and eventually there was an assessment of a net turnover of Rs. 3,86,099.26. At the same time a turnover of Rs. 1,76,954.16 was charged to tax under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act. On the view that the assessee failed to disclose the turnover so brought to tax a penalty of Rs. 18,580.17 was levied under section 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act read with section 12(3) of the Madras .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... liability to penalty only by reason of the provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. In other words, section 12(3) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act is not adopted for purposes of sub-section (3) of section 9. The only provision in the Central Sales Tax Act providing for penalty is section 10 and that does not cover a penalty of the type contemplated by section 12(3) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. In our view, therefore, the penalty levied in this case cannot be held to be valid. On the other point too, as we said, the assessee is entitled to succeed. There is clearly no provision in the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, providing for penalty as does section 12(3) of the 1959 Act. If that be so, as we find it .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... do so by reference to those provisions instead of reiterating them verbatim. That precisely is the case in relation to sub-section (3) of section 9. But the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, was repealed and was substituted by the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The argument for the petitioner is that the Parliament cannot with propriety make a law adopting by reference, the provisions of the State law, as they stand amended by the local Legislature from time to time. The principle of the contention is certainly unexceptionable, for while it is competent for the Parliament to adopt the existing provisions of a local law as part of the Central legislation without repeating those provisions in the Central Act, it cannot make a law adopt .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X