TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 730X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5, 2001, passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (respondent No. 3) and the order of the Tribunal dated July 22, 2004 by which the appellate authority and the revisional authority have upheld the order of the assessing authority. The controversy in this case is as to whether the petitioner is liable to pay sales tax on sale of country made liquor for the period of May 21, 1997 to November 16, 1997? It is an admitted fact that prior to May 21, 1997, sales tax on country made liquor was not leviable. For the first time the sales tax on the country made liquor was imposed by the State of Bihar at 25 per cent by a notification dated May 21, 1997 issued under the Act. A wholesale dealer S.K. Consolidated Ltd., filed a writ appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 97 to November 16, 1997) on the turnover for the simple reason that once the notification was stayed, the petitioner did not collect the sales tax and if he had not collected the same then he could not be penalised and in that view of the matter the assessment order for the aforesaid period for levying the tax on the turnover of the said period is impermissible in law. In support of the said submission he has relied upon a judgments which will be referred at the appropriate stage. Learned counsel for the State raised two points. Firstly, he submitted that even if the claim of the petitioner was considered and rejected by the appellate authority and the revisional authority, he still has an adequate and efficacious remedy of reference as p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e matter on the merit itself instead of going into the question of maintainability on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy, which we will decide in an appropriate case. So far the merit is concerned, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner as the notification was stayed by this Court which was later on vacated or modified, the petitioner is not liable to pay tax for the aforesaid period for the simple reason that once the notification was stayed and it was not in operation he did not collect the tax on the turnover and any direction for payment of tax for the aforesaid period will cause undue hardship to the petitioner. He also submitted that the petitioner's case deserves equitable consideration by this Court. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he differential amount of tax from such dealers. Taking into consideration the hardship faced by such dealers and in the interest of justice and equity, the Supreme Court restrained the State from collecting amount by the said notification. The aforesaid two decisions, in our view, were rendered after taking into consideration the facts of those cases namely notifications, on the basis of which the dealers could not collect the tax, were held to be invalid and as such the sales tax should not be realised from them. Here the case is quite different and is fully covered by the law laid down by the apex Court, which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the State, in the case of Ouseph Mathai v. Abdul Khadir AIR 2002 SC 110; [2002] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
