TMI Blog1943 (3) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing and selling goods; and the term "turnover" is defined to mean (subject to certain exceptions) the aggregate amount for which goods are either bought by or sold by a dealer. The plaintiff craves reference to the said Act, for greater certainty. 3.. That the defendant claims that by virtue of the said Act, it is entitled to levy a tax on the manufacturer or producer of all goods on the first sale thereof. And the defendant has been taxing manufacturers and producers in the Province of Madras accordingly. The plaintiff submits that such a tax on the first sale, in so far as it relates to goods other thaw those mentioned in Entry 40, List II, of the 7th Schedule of the Government of India Act, 1935, is a Federal duty of excise and beyond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submits that the tax levied by the im- pugned enactment, being a tax on the turnover of the business of a dealer, is within the power of this Province and is not hit at by any Entry in the Federal Legislative List. This defendant states that in the Reference, In re The Central Provinces and Berar Act XIV of 1938 [1939] F.C.R. 18; p. 1 supra, the Advocate-General of India conceded the position that a turnover tax would be included in Entry No. 48 of the Provincial List. 5.. This defendant further states that in the case of the taxing power exercised in the present case, no question of any encroachment on or clash with any Federal power arises as the sales tax imposed by this defendant may validly co-exist side by side with a Federal duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ia Act and that the suit is therefore incom- petent. 8.. This defendant therefore submits that the plaintiff is not entitled to the declaration sought and prays that this suit may be dismissed with costs. Sir Brojendra Mitter, Advocate-General of India (Mr. H.R. Kazimi, Advocate, Federal Court, with him) instructed by Mr. K.Y. Bhandarkar, Agent, Federal Court, for the plaintiff. Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Aiyar, Advocate-General, Madras (Mr. N. Rajagopala Ayyangar, Advocate, Federal Court, with him) instruct- ed by Mr. B. Banerji, Agent, Federal Court, for the defendant. Sir Asoka Roy, Advocate-General of Bengal (Mr. H.K. Bose, Advo- cate, Federal Court, with him) instructed by Mr. B. Banerji, Agent, Federal Court, for the Province of Beng ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conclusion that having regard to these two entries a sales tax upon a manufacturer or a producer cannot be distinguished from a tax on other sales and therefore it was within the competence of the Provincial Legislature. A tax levied on sales by a producer or a manufacturer was not a duty of excise within the meaning of entry 45, List I, was your decision. Having regard to the fact that your Lordships came to that decision after a lengthy argument I do not think I should be justified in taking up your Lordships' time in arguing the matter over again. The only reason why this suit has been brought is, I may tell your Lordships without meaning any disrespect, that the Government of India consider that this is a matter of very great importa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... swami of Bizag applied for being made a party inasmuch as his client was interested in the result of the appeal. This application was rejected by the Court. Chief Justice-Mr. Advocate-General, do you want judgment? Advocate-General of Madras-Yes, My Lord and with costs. Chief Justice-Judgment for defendant with costs. JUDGMENT GWYER, C.J.-In this case the Governor-General in Council brings an action against the Province of Madras for a declaration that the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, is an encroachment upon the rights of the Central Legislature. Under that Act, a tax is levied on the sale of goods in the Province of Madras; and it is contended on behalf of the Government of India that, so far as sales by a producer or a manufact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndents in Boddu Paidanna Sons v. The Province of Madras ([1943] 5 F.L.J. 95) for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council, he desired to test elsewhere the decision of the Court, as under Section 208 (a) of the Constitution Act he has the right to do without asking for leave. We agree that substantially the same issue is raised in the present suit as in the appeal last year and we see no reason to modify the deci- sion which we then gave. The Advocate-General of Madras, who appeared on behalf of the defendant, in asking for judgment, stated that he must not be taken as abandoning the contention which he had raised in his pleading that, notice of the proceedings in the earlier case having been given to the Advocate-General of India un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
