9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (10) TMI 298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act and, therefore, subject to the ceiling prescribed in the said section. On this basis the assessing authority enhanced the taxable turnover for both the years against which the assessee filed appeals before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) which were dismissed. The assessee then carried the matter in further appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal did not agree with the petitioner's contention that cycle rims were iron and steel within the meaning of section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act and accordingly rejected that contention. But so far as the other contention is concerned it accepted the same and it is only that aspect which is relevant in these revisions. Section 4-B of the U.P. Sales Tax Act provides a kind of relief to certain manufacturers. It is not necessary to notice the entire section. It will be sufficient if we notice clause (a) to sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) which only are relevant for our purpose. They read as follows: "Section 4B. Special relief to certain manufacturers.-(1)......... (a) Where any goods liable to tax under sub-section (1) of section 3-D are purchased by a dealer who is liable to tax on the turnove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t paying any sales tax, as the case may be. On October 10, 1968, the Government had issued Notification No. 4748 according to which bicycles and perambulators among others were declared as notified goods and certain concessions were provided in the matter of purchase of raw material by manufacturers of such notified goods. It was by virtue and in pursuance of this notification that certain dealers obtained recognition certificates and who issued the same to the assessee-dealer herein while purchasing their requirements of raw material from the assessee-dealer. On June 11, 1974, however, the Government issued another notification under section 4-13 bearing Notification No. 3867 in supersession of certain earlier notifications including Notification No. 4748 dated October 10, 1968. The notifications superseded were mentioned in the margin to that notification. In describing Notification No. 4748 dated October 10, 1968 however, there was a slight printing error. Instead of mentioning the date as October 10, 1968 it was mentioned as October 10, 1969. It is necessary to mention that Notification No. 3867 dated June 11, 1974 evolved an altogether different scheme under section 4-B. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as taken. Notification No. 4841 dated June 25, 1986 does not purport to have been issued under section 25 of the Act. It does not cite any provision of law under which it was issued. It merely claims to be a corrigendum. It was the respondentdealer who sought to relate the said notification to section 25 and the Tribunal appears to agree implicitly with the dealer that it is so. In my opinion, there was no justification for doing this, particularly when Notification No. 4841 expressly states that it is a corrigendum, i.e., a correction or rectification as it may be called. We may in this connection notice that the power to issue above notification is derived not from section 25, but from section 4B and the rules made thereunder, namely, rules 25-A and 25-B. Section 25 merely empowers the State Government to issue notifications with retrospective effect but such retrospectivity shall not exceed six months. This is, how section 25 reads: "Section 25: Power to issue notification with retrospective effect.-Where the State Government is satisfied that it is necessary so to do in public interest, it may issue a notification under section 3-A or section 3-B, or section 4 or section 4-B so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... substantive power conferred upon the Government to issue a notification by section 4-B. Such a power is necessary for an effective exercise of the substantive power. It is next argued that the assessee was not supposed to read the date of the notification correctly and that it was the duty of the Government to have expressed its intention clearly and without any error. It is also argued that if the Government has committed any error, be that an accidental error, it alone must take the consequences and not the assessee. I find it difficult to accede to this argument. Every law must be reasonably interpreted. No interpretation should be adopted which tends to defeat the very purpose of the law. Even a taxation law must be reasonably construed and the same principle applies to a notification issued under the taxation statute. Lastly it is argued by Sri P.N. Mathur, learned counsel for the respondentassessee, that this question indeed has been adjudicated upon by a learned single Judge of this Court in a case of this very assessee though relating to another assessment year. The reference is to the judgment of Anshuman Singh, J., dated November 5, 1985 reported as Dunlop India Limi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
