9911796707
TMI Blog1967 (11) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndhra Pradesh from enforcing the said provisions against the petitioner. The petitioner is a miller whose business consists in milling rice for hire only. He is neither a purchaser of paddy nor seller of rice. According to him, for about 30 customers 15 to 20 bags of paddy are milled per day at the rate of Re. I per bag out of which he has to pay the electricity charges and labour. The Union Government enacted the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 (Act 21 of 1958) which came into force on 18th May, 1958, regulating the business of milling and he has been conforming to the provisions of the said Act. While so, the State Legislature has introduced certain provisions by the Amending Act 16 of 1963. It is the petitioner's grievance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these impugned provisions have been introduced. They do not violate any fundamental rights to carry on business or hold property............ These rules are therefore intended to protect the State as well as the dealer including the miller who does not have sale transactions." Before we address ourselves to the contentions raised, we may briefly refer to the provisions impugned before us: Section 2(i-1) of the Act defines "miller" as the person who engages himself in rice milling operations in a rice mill and includes a person who, or the authority which, has the ultimate control over the affairs of the rice mill. Section 12-A(1)(b) of the Act says that a miller who is not a wholesale dealer or a retail dealer shall also get himself r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gislative competence thus turns on the question whether the measures were meant to prevent evasion of sales tax for which the State Legislature has power. Now it is settled law that the entries in the lists are not powers but are only fields of legislation and that widest import and significance must be given to the language used by Parliament in the various entries. Vide Balaji v. Income-tax Officer[1961] 43 I.T.R. 393; A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 123. Cases have consistently expressed the view that the power to levy a tax includes incidental powers to prevent the evasion of such tax. Vide Baldev Singh v. Income-tax Commissioner[1960] 40 I.T.R. 605; A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 736., Abdul Quader and Co. v. Sales Tax Officer[1964] 15 S.T.C. 403; A.I.R. 1964 S. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Coimbatore[1965] 16 S.T.C. 213; A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1082. In the first of the cases, the question for determination was whether the provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act were ultra vires in so far as they sought to impose a tax on the supply of materials in execution of works contracts by the contractor treating it as a sale of goods. The question was answered in the negative that it was not within the competence of the Provincial Legislature under entry 48 to impose a tax on the supply of materials used in a contract of works treating it as a sale. But to avoid misconception it was also stated that that conclusion was reached where the works contracts were entire and indivisible. In the second of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
