9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (11) TMI 240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 1959-60, i.e., from 1st April, 1959, to 31st March, 1960. This assessment and levy were affirmed in appeal. The petitioner challenged the abovesaid orders of assessment through Civil Writ Petition No. 3072 of 1968 in this Court and the same was allowed on 30th April, 1973, following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhawani Cotton Mills Ltd. v. State of Punjab[1967] 20 S.T.C. 290 (S.C.). and, while quashing the orders of assessment, the learned single judge left it open to the Assessing Authority to review the previous order of assessment in the light of the Punjab General Sales Tax (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1967, which piece of legislation had been brought about to overcome the abovesaid judgment of the Supreme Court in the Bh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tate shall, in so far as it imposes or authorises the imposition of a tax on the sale or purchase of declared goods, be subject to the following restrictions and conditions, namely: (a) the tax payable under that law in respect of any sale or purchase of such goods inside the State shall not exceed three per cent of the sale or purchase price thereof, and such tax shall not be levied at more than one stage; (b) where a tax has been levied under that law in respect of the sale or purchase inside the State of any declared goods and such goods are sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, and tax has been paid under this Act in respect of the sale of such goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, the tax levied under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d at more than one stage. It was further observed that there was no machinery by which a dealer could ascertain whether his vendor of the declared goods had paid the tax already. Even otherwise, it would be seen that if a dealer A sold the declared goods to B six months after the close of the year (B being a registered dealer), A became liable to purchase tax. But if B sold again after the period mentioned in sub-clause (vi) of section 5(2)(a) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, he would also be liable to pay purchase tax. That means, in respect of the same item of declared goods, more than one person was liable to pay tax and the tax was also levied at more than one stage. That is not permissible under section 15(a) of the Central Act. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from 1st April, 1960. He points out that prior to 1st April, 1960, this law, i.e., the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, continues to suffer from the same defect, which has been noticed by the Supreme Court in the Bhawani Cotton Mills' case[1967] 20 S.T.C. 290 (S.C.). that the State Act is not in conformity with the provisions of section 15(a) of the Central Act and the chances of double taxation, i.e., both the taxes being charged on the same goods, have not been ruled out. I find the submission is full of merit. The defect which has been removed by bringing in subsection (2-A) of section 4 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act continues to persist prior to 1st April, 1960. So, in view of the above-noted position, the assessment, which is now ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
