9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (2) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cision was rendered on 10th November, 1964. However the petitioner collected sales tax on inter-State sales of rubber. On 9th June, 1969, the Vice-President acting as President of India promulgated the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Ordinance (4 of 1969). This was repealed and replaced by the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1969, which came into force on 30th August, 1969. Both the Act and the Ordinance contained more or less similar provisions. One of them is that a dealer shall be liable to pay tax under the Central Sales Tax Act on sale of any goods effected by him in the course of inter-State trade or commerce notwithstanding that no tax would have been leviable under the sales tax law of the appropriate State if that sale had taken p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arties as tax on interState sales. Messrs Dunlop India Ltd. called on the petitioner to refund to them the above amount, on the ground that tax was not payable on such sales in the light of the above decision of the Supreme Court. The petitioner returned the amount on 22nd January, 1969, by a cheque on the Central Bank of India and paid the balance tax of Rs. 773.72 to the State Government. The Sales Tax Officer, Palai, the third respondent called upon the petitioner by letter, exhibit P-1 dated 23rd July, 1969, to pay to the State Government the amount of Rs. 8,112.92, which the petitioner collected from Messrs Dunlop India Ltd. The petitioner replied stating that the amount had been returned to Messrs Dunlop India Ltd., under the circumst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; and Messrs Dunlop India Ltd. demanded return of the amount collected from them. The petitioner was bound to return the same; and he did so before the Ordinance came into force. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is entitled to the exemption under section 10 of the Amendment Act, while the learned Government Pleader submits that the case does not fall within the said section. According to the Government Pleader, this is not a case where the dealer has not collected tax, and he is not, therefore, entitled to the exemption; it is irrelevant whether he returned to the purchaser what he collected or when he did so. According to the petitioner's counsel, return of an amount wrongly collected has the same effect of having no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... granted under section 10 of the Act. Such a differentiation would be unconstitutional; and I must presume that Parliament would not intend it. 4.. Counsel for the petitioner referred me to a Division Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Kathan Nadar Co. v. State of Madras[1963] 14 S.T.C. 694. in support of his contention that the effect of refunding an amount wrongly collected by way of tax is the same as not having collected it. In that case, sales tax was collected by a dealer under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, though the sale of the goods concerned was exempt from tax. The amount was returned by the dealer to the person from whom it was collected, when it was demanded by him. Section 8-B(2) of the Madras General Sales ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
