9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (7) TMI 226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the revenue and the following question has been referred for our opinion: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Sales Tax Tribunal, Orissa, was justified to hold that the assessee was not liable to pay sales tax with effect from 1st July, 1969, to 31st October, 1969?" 2. The assessee was an unregistered dealer carrying on business in grocery and stationery articles ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was that the amending Act of 1968 came into force with effect from 1st July, 1969, by which the non-taxable limit was raised from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 25,000 of the gross turnover. It was contended that as the gross turnover of the assessee did not exceed Rs. 25,000 on 1st July, 1969, his liability to pay tax ceased with effect from the date the amending Act came into force. This contention was ulti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... econsideration. According to the counsel for the assessee, in the earlier amending Act of 1958, section 24 provides a saving clause in respect of liability whereas in the amending Act 1968, section 16 made provision for removal of doubts. In section 16, according to the assessee's counsel, the liability that was saved was one that arose under section 4(1) of the principal Act and not under sub-sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act and a dealer who would get into the business after the amending Act of 1968. We do not think that there is any scope for the contention of discrimination. A continuing dealer and a new dealer do not belong to the same class, and if legislation is made making the continuing dealer subject to one type of dealer (sic) and the new dealer would be subject to advantages, it would not amount to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
