TMI Blog1964 (4) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e from April 1, 1950, would supersede the agreement and thereafter the legislative provisions would prevail in spite of the obligation cast on the Government of India by Article 295(l)(b). The principle of that decision in our opinion applies to Article 295(2) also under which the obligation in the present case devolved on the Part B State of Madhya Bharat, and in that view the legislative provisions made by the M.B. Sales Tax Act, 1950, or the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, would prevail as against the agreement. - Civil Appeal No. 848, 849, 855 of 1963, - - - Dated:- 28-4-1964 - GAJENDRAGADKAR P.B., WANCHOO K.N., HIDAYATULLAH M., DAS GUPTA K.C. AND RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR N. JJ. M.C. Setalvad and K.A. Chitale, Senior Advo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on January 26, 1950, the United State of Madhya Bharat became the Part B State of Madhya Bharat. The Legislature of the State of Madhya Bharat passed the M.B. Sales Tax Act, 1950 (No. 30 of 1950), which was brought into force from May 1, 1950. In consequence thereof the Sales Tax Officer started proceedings to levy sales tax on the sales made by the respondent. Thereupon the respondent filed a suit (No. 6 of 1953) in the Court of the District judge, Gwalior, in which he contended that the State of Madhya Bharat was bound by the agreement of April 7, 1947, in view of Article 295(2) of the Constitution and therefore it was not open to the State of Madhya Bharat or its officers to levy sales tax on the sales made by the respondent. The respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e respondent had not given any detail of the tax paid and nothing had also been said as to how considerations of estoppel, acquiescence, limitation, etc., did not apply. In these circumstances the prayer for refund was rejected. The High Court however issued a direction restraining the State of Madhya Pradesh and its officers from making any assessment under the M.B. Sales Tax Act or the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act and from levying or collecting the tax in contravention of the exemption granted by the agreement of April 7, 1947, and quashed the proceedings taken by the Sales Tax Authorities in contravention of the said exemption. This decision has led to three appeals before us, (i) by the appellant against the order decreeing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 58, would prevail as against the agreement. In this view of the matter the appeals of the appellant must succeed and the appeal of the respondent must fail. In view of this decision it is unnecessary for us to consider whether the exemption granted by the agreement of April 7, 1947, would cover sales tax also. Even if it does, that would be of no assistance to the respondent in view of the legislative provision made after April 1, 1950. We therefore allow Appeals Nos. 849 and 855. The writ petition of the respondent is dismissed and so is the suit brought by it. We dismiss Appeal No. 848. In the circumstances we order parties to bear their own costs throughout in all the appeals. Ordered accordingly. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - CST, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
