2006 (8) TMI 525

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... gs was passed based on an inspection conducted by the Enforcement Wing Officials at No.103, Avvai Shanmugam Salai, Chennai 14, about which the petitioner was not aware of. In the above address, the petitioner had its administrative office till 31.3.1998 and it closed its business activities from 1.4.1998. The petitioner never registered itself under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Saes Tax Act, as it had the sale office only at Bangalore and was a registered dealer there at Bangalore. For the notice issued to the petitioner with the proposal to levy huge tax and penalty, the petitioner filed his objections on 21.12.2003 stating that the inspection was conducted by the enforcement wing officials at No.103, Avvai Shanmugam Salai, Che .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and chance to win. It was held that tax could be levied on the right to participate in the draw which was held to be the goods but not on the chance to win which was held to be actionable claim. 5. The decision of the Supreme Court being declaration of the true and correct position of law became applicable to all the transactions and proceedings which have not become final and concluded. The rendering of a judgment by the Supreme Court is not the same as enactment of a statute. A decision of the Supreme Court does not make the law, but merely explains and puts in proper perspective the true position and effect of the law. The true position of law so declared exists from the very date of making the law and not from the date of declaratio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r thereafter notwithstanding that notices of demand may have been issued or recovery proceedings initiated... The judgment further explains the position as follows : ....... by prospective over ruling, the Court does not grant the relief claimed even after holding in claimant's favour. In this case, the Court held that the statutory provision imposing vend fee was invalid. Strictly speaking, this would have entitled the appellant to a refund from the respondent of all the amounts collected by way of vend fee. But because, as stated in the Synthetics decision (1990) 1 SCC 109 itself, over a period of time imposts and levies had been imposed by virtue of the earlier decision and that the States as well as the petitioners and manuf .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X