9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (7) TMI 298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellate authority, who, while upholding the levy of penalty, reduced the same from Rs. 480 to Rs. 320 equal to the surcharge collected. Thereafter the assessee filed an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, contending that section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, would not apply in respect of surcharge leviable under section 3(2) of the Surcharge Act. The Tribunal accepted the contention of the assessee, holding that the levy of penalty could not be legally sustained, as section 3(2) of the Surcharge Act and rule 8 of the Surcharge Rules referred only to the surcharge payable under the provisions of the Surcharge Act and that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, relating to the levy of penalty would not apply in respect of the collection of surcharge. In this view, the Tribunal set aside the levy of penalty. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal the State has come up in revision before this Court. According to the Revenue, the Tribunal has not properly understood the scope of the provisions of section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Surcharge) Act, 1971, on a proper interpretation of section 3(2) of the said Act, sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore, section 22 of the General Sales Tax Act, 1959 applies to the collection of surcharge as well. The assessee in that case contended that with regard to surcharge, penalty could not be levied invoking section 22 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 because section 22 would not apply to the collection of surcharge. In support of that contention reliance was placed on the wording of section 3(2) of the Surcharge Act, 1971 and it was contended that the section does not either expressly or by necessary implication make section 22 of the General Sales Tax Act apply to the collection of surcharge. The Bench had no hesitation to reject that contention, as it took the view that what was sought to be levied under the Surcharge Act, 1971 was only surcharge which was dependent upon the liability to pay sales tax and, that, in any event, the language of section 3(2) of the Surcharge Act indicated that the intention of the Legislature was to apply every provision of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 as is applicable to sales tax, to surcharge. Thus the Court held that section 22 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 was applicable to the levy of surcharge, in view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les Tax Act, 1959 so far as it is applicable to surcharge, it must be taken that the entire provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 save as otherwise provided under the Surcharge Act, 1971 would apply in relation to surcharge. We do not see how, merely because the word "all" has not been used in section 3(2) and only "the provisions of the said Act" has been used in the said provision, it should be inferred that the intention of the Legislature was not to make the entire provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 applicable in relation to surcharge. Thus, on a due and proper consideration of the provisions of section 3(2) of the Surcharge Act, and section 22 of the General Sales Tax Act, 1959 we are inclined to take the view that section 22 of the General Sales Tax Act, 1959 stands attracted, by virtue of section 3(2) of the Surcharge Act, 1971 to surcharge payable under the latter Act. Thus we are inclined to agree with the view expressed in Rajamani v. State of Tamil Nadu [1980] 46 STC 451 in preference to the view expressed in State of Tamil Nadu v. Mathurai Veerasamy Co. [1983] 52 STC 131. Though, under normal circumstances, when there is a dive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a complete and self-contained code on the charge created by it and that section 3(2) which formed an integral part of the charging section, showed that the State Legislature intended not to depart substantially from the principal Act, except with regard to matters in respect of which express provisions had been made in the Act, that the additional sales tax was in the nature of a surcharge over and above what was due and payable by the assessee under the principal Act, that it was therefore necessary to read and construe the two Acts together as if the two Acts were one, and by reason of section 3(2) of the Orissa Additional Sales Tax Act, section 8 of the principal Act was applicable to the levy of additional tax also. The Supreme Court further held that section 3(2) of the Orissa Additional Sales Tax Act, which made the provisions of the principal Act, mutatis mutandis, applicable to the levy of additional tax, is a part of the charging provisions of the Additional Sales Tax Act and that it did not say that only those provisions of the principal Act, which related to the assessment and collection of tax would be applicable to the provisions of the Additional Sales Tax Act, 1975. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
