Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + SC VAT and Sales Tax - 1983 (5) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1983 (5) TMI 31 - SC - VAT and Sales TaxConstitutional validity of sub-s. (2-A) of s. 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 as amended by the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1976 and S. 9 of the Amending Act validating the levy of penalties under the Act with retrospective effect questioned Held that:- There is no dispute in this case about the validity of the tax payable under the Act, during the period between January 1, 1957, and the date of commencement of the Amending Act. It has to be presumed that all the tax has been collected by the dealers from their customers. There is also no dispute that the law required the dealers to pay the tax within the specified time. The dealers had also the knowledge of the provisions relating to penalties in the general sales tax laws of their respective States. In this situation, where the dealers have utilised the money which should have been paid to the Government and have committed default in performing their duty, if Parliament calls upon them to pay penalties in accordance with the law as amended with retrospective effect it cannot be said that there has been any unreasonable restriction imposed on the rights guaranteed under art. 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution, even though the period of retrospectivity is nearly nineteen years. It is also pertinent to refer here to sub-s. (3) of S. 9 of the Amending Act, which provides that the provisions contained in sub-s. (2) thereof would not prevent a person from questioning the imposition or collection of any penalty or any proceeding, act or thing in connection therewith or for claiming any refund in accordance with the Act as amended by the Amending Act read with sub-s. (1) of 9. of the Amending Act. Explanation to sub-s. (3) of S. 9 of the Amending Act also provides for exclusion of the period between February 27, 1975, i.e., the date on which the judgment in Khemka's case [1975 (2) TMI 91 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] was delivered upto the date of the commencement of the Amending Act, in computing the period of limitation for questioning any order levying penalty. In those proceedings, the authorities concerned are sure to consider all aspects of the case before passing orders levying penalties. The contention that the impugned provision is violative of art. 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution has, therefore, to be rejected. Also not possible to hold that S. 48 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973, confers an uncanalised, unguided and arbitrary power on the authority levying penalty. Appeal dismissed.
|