TMI Blog1964 (7) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tional on the grounds more fully set out in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. This petition came up for admission before us on 26th June, 1964. At that time, in the light of the argument advanced before us, we concentrated our attention only on section 19 of the Act. It was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that section 19 does not purport to levy any tax on the sales in question; it merely authorises the State Government to collect tax on those sales on the assumption that those sales are exigible to tax; but that assumption has no legal basis. If we read section 19 by itself as we mistakenly did at that time, there is some support for this contention. Hence, we thought it desirable to hear the learned Advocat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntention that sections 19 and 5(3)(a) are ultra vires of the Constitution was not pressed at the hearing. Therefore the only question for decision is whether on a true interpretation of those provisions, the right claimed by the Government can be upheld. To pronounce on that question it is necessary to examine the relevant provisions in the Act. The definition of "dealer" in section 2(k) to the extent it is relevant for our present purpose is as follows: " 'Dealer' means any person who carries on the business of buying, selling, supplying or distributing goods in the State of Mysore directly or otherwise whether for cash or deferred payment or for other valuable consideration, and includes- (i) the Central Government and a State Governm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is proviso, though the State Government (the State Government of Mysore) is not a "dealer" as defined in section 2(k) it is deemed to be a "dealer" in respect of sales by it of any of the goods mentioned in serial Nos. 38, 39 and 40 of the Second Schedule. The language of the proviso in question is plain and unambiguous. It does not call for any interpretation. Therefore, there is no need to call into aid the rules of construction or refer to cases laying down those rules. The contention of Sri Iyer that "the State Government" does not mean the State Government of Mysore does not call for serious attention. The proviso refers to "the State Government" and not to "a State Government". Section 5(3)(a) refers to "the State" meaning the State o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... " In view of this provision, the State Government in respect of the transactions falling within the ambit of section 5(3) (a) has power to collect tax from its purchasers just in the same manner a registered dealer could do under section 18(3). Sri Iyer complains that when the State Government computes the tax due under section 19, the purchaser has no right to question the correctness of the quantification made as there is no machinery to enquire into his grievance. When the State Government collects tax from its purchasers under section 19, there is no quantification as such. If the State Government collects more tax than it is entitled to, then, the aggrieved parties must seek such remedies as are open to them under law. Similar is th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
