Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2009 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (7) TMI 1198 - KERALA HIGH COURTWhether in view of substitution of section 30(2) the substituted provisions will hold sway from the commencement of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003? Held that:- There is no merit in the contention of the petitioner that substitution has retrospective operation and it has effect from the commencement of the Act. Section 30(2) provided for prohibition against collection of tax except in respect of two categories. In other words, it created a substantial right in respect of the assessees who were eligible to collect tax under the provision and it created a liability on the buyer from such assessees to pay the tax. Apart from creating a right in such assessees to collect tax, in the same way, the assessees against whom there was a prohibition against collection of tax were visited with the disability against collecting tax. This necessarily also would mean that the persons to whom they sold the goods had equal right to insist that they shall not be called upon to pay tax. Collection of tax by persons who were not entitled to collect tax under section 30 is made liable to be visited with penal consequences under the Act. Legislation can be vetoed by a Constitutional court only if such result is wholly unavoidable. Judicial deference to the Legislature's declaration of its value judgment is not constitutional anathema. On the other hand, it is one which squares with a long tradition of the judicial exposition of the true role of the court. In the light of the above discussion, the petitioner has failed to establish any ground to grant any relief in its writ petition. The writ petition fails, and it is dismissed.
|