9911796707
TMI Blog1967 (2) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... composition fee of Rs. 500. The petitioner impugns the levy as illegal and invalid. 2.. It appears from the records that the levy was more or less a matter of discussion and consent between the petitioner and the Commercial Tax Officer. It is also clear that the action taken by the officer is relatable to section 31 of the Act. 3.. If that much can be clearly gathered from the record, we fail to see what grievance the petitioner can make in respect of the levy. 4.. He has, however, raised a technical point to the effect that this was a case in which no punishment was possible under sub-section (2) of section 27 and that, therefore, the composition under section 31 was equally impossible. 5.. Now sections 27 and 31 read as follows: "27 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which a punishment by way of imprisonment or fine is capable of being imposed. Looking at sub-section (2) it would appear, according to the argument, that the proper fine to be imposed in a given case has necessarily to be calculated on the basis of the amount of the bill or cash memorandum in respect of which a contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) had taken place and that, therefore, if no bill at all has been issued, there is no way of computing the fine to be imposed. 6.. It appears to us that it is unnecessary to import such difficulty into the interpretation of the section. It is undoubted that the contravention of sub-section (1) may also consist in a failure to issue a bill where a bill should be issued. Hence the amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y suggesting that evasion is possible not merely by persons whose turnover exceeds Rs. 20,000 but also by those with lesser turnover. But it is not necessary to regard this section as subserving the only purpose of preventing evasion. It may well be regarded as an incidental provision in aid of the main purpose of the Act viz., computation of tax liability. If so, the Legislature cannot be said to have contravened Article 14 by taking into account that the necessity for issuing bills is greater and more desirable in the case of persons with a larger turnover than in the case of persons with a smaller turnover.
8.. The writ petition therefore fails and is dismissed with costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 100.
Petition dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
