9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 322X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1979 whereby the High Court has dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellant. The respondent in spite of service is not present and proceeded ex parte. The brief facts giving rise to the present controversy are: The dispute in the present case relates to the year 1966-67. The respondent-assessee, hereinafter referred to as "the respondent", is a dealer in foodgrains, cement, kerosene oil, etc. The account books of the respondent were accepted but the assessing officer did not allow tax exemption on purchase of rice for Rs. 31,278.44. Similarly, the assessing officer did not allow tax exemption to the respondent on the purchase of broken dal worth Rs. 8,71,474.13. The assessing officer also fixed the turnover of imported kero ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... history: In the case of Tilok Chand Prasan Kumar v. Sales Tax Officer, Hathras, District Aligarh reported in [1970] 25 STC 118, the High Court of All habad considered the question "as to whether arhar dal purchased by dal mills and converted into broken-down dal was a commodity different from arhar dal". It was held that dehusking, cleaning and breaking down of the dal or grain does not bring into existence a new commercial commodity. Purchase tax was being levied under section 3-D of the Act and after this decision the Legislature stepped in to resolve the controversy in favour of the State by adding an Explanation with retrospective effect to section 3-D by amending the Act by U. P. Sales Tax (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1970 (U. P. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bad High Court in Tilok Chand Prasan Kumar's case [1970] 25 STC 118. On the other hand, it has accepted that decision as correct; but has sought to remove the basis of that decision by retrospectively changing the law. This court has pointed out in several cases the distinction between the encroachment on the judicial power and the nullification of the effect of a judicial decision by changing the law retrospectively. The former is outside the competence of the Legislature but the latter is within its permissible limits. From the Statement of Objects and Reasons, it appears that in the Principal Act, the legislative intent was not clearly brought out. By means of the amending Act the Legislature wanted to make clear its intent." If Explana ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Explanation.-For determining the turnover liable to tax under clause (b), the amounts for which goods are purchased by one registered dealer from another registered dealer shall be deducted from his gross turnover only if the purchase in question is proved not to be the first purchase." After this, Act was again amended by U. P. Act No. 23 of 1976, section 3-D was again amended. Section 3 of Amending Act recites as under: "3. Amendment of section 3-D.-In section 3-D of the principal Act, in sub-section (1), the existing Explanation shall be renumbered as Explanation I, and thereafter the following Explanation II shall be inserted and be deemed always to have been inserted, namely: Explanation II.-For the purposes of this sub-section, in r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egislature, while passing the two earlier Amending Acts, had been to preserve Explanation I and Explanation II as found in section 3-D at the time when the amendments were made, section 3 of Act No. 23 of 1976 would not have directed that the existing Explanation should be numbered as Explanation I and a new Explanation set out in that Act should be numbered as Explanation II. It is not possible to take the view that the Legislature intended that there should be two Explanations, both having the same number. The intention appears to be that the Amending Acts of 1972 and 1974 died away with the earlier Explanations occurring at the end of section 3-D(1), and Act No. 23 of 1976 numbered the single Explanation in section 3-D as Explanation I, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the statute book and, therefore, the law laid down in Tilok Chand's case [1970] 25 STC 118, by the division Bench of the High Court to the effect that dehusking by machines would not bring into existence a new commodity would become operative. The single Judge in the impugned order, although aware of the order of the division Bench of the High Court in Prakash Trading Company's case 1972] 30 STC 345, and of the decision of this court in Hiralal Rattanlal [1973] 31 STC 178, held that in view of the decision in Gouti Bandhu's case reported in [1978] UPTC 707, the Explanation II added by the Amending Act, 1970 ceased to be on the statute book and, therefore, cannot be applicable to the facts of the case. Counsel for the appellant has broug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
