Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1966 (4) TMI 69

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... itions. I am, therefore, confining myself to the facts of Civil Writ No. 540-D of 1959. The petitioner is a building contractor carrying on the business of execution of building contracts in the Union Territory of Delhi. For the year 1954-55 the petitioner was assessed to sales tax of Rs. 13,945-14-0 on part of the payments received by him on account of the execution of various building contracts. Besides that, a penalty of Rs. 200 was also imposed on the petitioner by on order of the Sales Tax Officer dated 8th December, 1955, for non-filing of returns. Sale price liable to sales tax was determined in accordance with rule 28 of the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1951. After various proceedings by way of appeals and revisions the matter was sent b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ven in the various decisions mentioned hereinbelow and also for the reason that there is sweeping delegation of legislative power. The decisions relied upon are: (1) Pandit Banarsi Das v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others[1955] 6 S.T.C. 93., (2) C. Damodaran v. The Agricultural Income-tax and Rural Sales Tax Officer, Devicolam, and Others[1956] 7 S.T.C. 417., (3) Jubilee Engineering Co., Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, Hyderabad City, and Others[1956] 7 S.T.C. 423., (4) Kenchappa and Others v. Sales Tax Officer, Fourth Circle, Bangalore[1957] 8 S.T.C. 329., (5) Bhuramal and Others v. State of Rajasthan[1957] 8 S.T.C. 463. and (6) Dukhineswar Sarkar & Bros. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer and Others[1957] 8 S.T.C. 478.. In Bhuramal's case .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e is no knowing whether the amount that is left over after the deduction has been made according to Rule 7, is only the price of materials supplied or also includes something over and above that. It is obvious that if it includes something over and above that, the Legislature is taxing not only the sale price of the goods, but also the labour supplied by the contractor, and the work of the contractor himself, which, of course, it could not do under entry 54. Consequently this artificial rule cannot be sustained as a valid piece of legislation under entry 54. " Similarly, in Dukhineswar Sarkar's case[1957] 8 S.T.C. 478., the provisions of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, in so far as they sought to bring within the net of taxation .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... inafter referred to as a sale involved in the execution of a contract)-such portion of the amount of the money consideration for the contract as may be prescribed, representing the price of the goods supplied; (ii) in other cases of sale-the amount of the money consideration for the sale, less any sum allowed as cash discount according to ordinary trade practice, but including any sum charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods at the time of, or before delivery thereof, other than the cost of freight or delivery or the cost of installation when such cost is separately charged." In short, the argument is that the Legislature has completely effaced itself and left it absolutely to the discretion of the executive to incl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... letely efface itself and prescribes the guiding principles within the frame-work of which the delegate has to act, there is no illegal delegation. By enacting section 2(h) of the said Act, the Legislature has delegated the law-making power to the executive without providing any guiding principles or laying down any standards. Rule 28 enacted in exercise of power under section 2(h) cannot be sustained. In the result, it must be held that rule 28 suffers from the vice abovementioned and is a bad piece of legislation. A writ of certiorari, therefore, must issue quashing the assessment order dated 10th August, 1959, made by the Sales Tax Officer and the consequent demand notice dated 14th August, 1959. With respect to the years 1955-56 and 195 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates