9911796707
TMI Blog1967 (10) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4-A(iv) of the Central Sales Tax (Madras) Rules, 1957. The Tribunal's view was that the rule is within the competency of the State Government under section 13(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. It dealt with the question of vires of the rule on the impression that section 9A as well as the rule covered collection by a registered dealer of an amount for which there is no liability to pay as tax under the Act. On the view we take of the scope of section 9A and rule 4-A, no question of vires of the rule arises. Section 9A reads: "No person who is not a registered dealer shall collect in respect of any sale by him of goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce any amount by way of tax under this Act, and no registered dealer shall make ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... justifies the interpretation that it covers any amount collected by a registered or unregistered dealer in respect of which there is actually no tax liability under the charging provision of the Act. The expression "any amount by way of tax" should, in our opinion, be understood in the context of the words that follow, "under the Act". So read what is contemplated, as it appears to us by the section, is collection of an amount in respect of which there is liability to pay as tax under one or the other provision of the Act. To put it differently the section does not cover an amount for which there is no liability under the Act to pay as tax. The language employed by section 9A is not "any amount by way of tax though not payable as tax under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It was because of this the competency of such a provision was considered and decided. Indian Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer[1965] 16 S.T.C. 285. dealt with the very section 9A of the Central Sales Tax Act. But the learned Judge, if we may say so with respect, assumed that the section covered an amount for which there was no liability to pay tax under the provisions of the Act. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd, v. State of Madras[1954] 5 S.T.C. 382 at 387. was cited before the learned Judge. But he distinguished it and Abdul Quader and Co. v. Sales Tax Officer[1964] 15 S.T.C. 403. on the ground that they interpreted the Act in the light of the powers of the Legi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and not to the sanction itself and what can be collected whithin the scope of section 9A. Section 13(3) empowers the State Government to make Rules not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and perhaps also the preamble thereto. In the present context the purpose of the Act is to be found in section 9A which is to authorise a registered dealer to collect an amount by way of tax, that is to say, an amount in respect of which there is liability to pay as tax, subject to the condition that such collection should be in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. On that view of the scope of section 9A and Rule 4-A, it follows that the demand made on the assessee to make over the excess collection cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
