9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 481X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing the Finance Act. Do not find any grievance or bona fides for the appellant to challenge the statutory provision. Further it is seen that even though the above provision is applicable to hundreds of cement dealers in the State no other person has approached this court challenging the statutory provision which only means that the provision was smoothly implemented in the State for all other dealers. Further along with cement all other 20 items are covered by section 17B and no other dealer has approached this court with any writ petition expressing any difficulty in the implementation of section 17B. Appeal dismissed. - W.A. No. 1072 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 9-12-2011 - RAMACHANDRAN NAIR C.N. AND VINOD CHANDRAN K., JJ. For the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sales. However, when the Finance Act, 2004, was passed and notified on July 27, 2004, the proposal to shift several items including cement from the First Schedule to the Fifth Schedule in terms of the Finance Bill was given up. In other words, cement and the other 20 items were retained in the First Schedule. Noticing the difficulty for those dealers who would have complied with the proposals contained in the Finance Bill, based on notification issued under the Kerala Provisional Collection of Revenues Act, 1985, the Government introduced section 17B to the Act through the Finance Act, 2005, which is as follows: 17B. Special provision for completion of assessment. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, a dealer who had purchas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hough the appellant has stated in the W.P. (C) that for some purchases he has paid 10 per cent tax and for certain other purchases he has paid 15 per cent, we do not know what is the justification for the violation of the provisions of the Finance Bill, 2004, which was in force through notification issued under the Kerala Provisional Collection of Revenues Act, 1985. Section 17B makes it very clear that the same applies only to those dealers who have purchased goods referred to therein including cement at the rates provided in the Finance Bill, 2004, and so much so, if at all the appellant has made purchases at full rate of tax under the First Schedule to the Act then, such purchases are not covered by the above provision. As already stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 2004 was operational, but not ultimately given effect while passing the Finance Act. 5. Another contention raised by the appellant is that since representations have been made by several organisations, they have not complied with the provisions of the Finance Bill. Here again what we feel is pending representations if full rate of tax was collected on first sales, then purchasers from such dealers are not covered by the above provision. The appellant also has a case that he has paid tax only at 10 per cent on the purchases which is based on the provisions of the Finance Bill, and so much so, the appellant is bound to pay tax on subsequent sales by virtue of the above provision. We, therefore, do not find any grievance or bona fides for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
