TMI Blog1968 (2) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n holding that the said rule had retrospective operation from the 1st July, 1957, and in deleting the tax levied by the lower authorities on taxes collected for the period from 1st July, 1957, to 15th November, 1957? (4) Whether on a true and proper construction of section 9(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, tax on tax is leviable? (5) Whether on a true and proper construction of section 8(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, tax on tax is leviable?" The relevant period for the purpose of the present reference is from the 1st of July, 1957, to the 31st of March, 1958, but the dispute between the parties centres round a part of that period, viz., the period from the 1st of July, 1957, to the 15th of November, 1957, it being the case of the respondents, who are the assessees, that they are entitled as from 1st July, 1957, to certain deductions granted by a notification dated the 6th of November, 1957, which was published and came into force on the 16th of November, 1957. It is, on the other hand, contended on behalf of the taxing authorities that the said notification cannot be given retrospective operation and that the deductions to which it refers could be availed of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds under the general sales tax law of the State was assessed, paid and collected. Section 13(1) of the said Central Act empowers the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette to make rules providing inter alia [clause (b)] for the period of turnover, the manner in which the turnover in relation to the sale of any goods under the said Act was to be determined, "and the deductions which may be made in the process of such determination". In exercise of the powers conferred upon it by the said sub-section (1) of section 13 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the Central Government has added to rule 11 of the Rules framed under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, a new sub-rule, the material portion of which is as follows: "(2) In determining the turnover of a dealer for the purposes of section 8 there shall be deducted the following amounts from the aggregate of sale prices, viz.: (a) the amount arrived at by applying the following formularate of tax X aggregate of sale prices -------------------------------------- 100 plus rate of tax (b).........................." It may be mentioned that the material portion of rule 11, as it originally stood, which was by vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hall be assessed separately for each year during which he is liable to pay the tax". Rule 4(1)(a) of the Bombay Sales Tax (Procedure) Rules, 1954, prescribes for the purpose of section 13 the dates by which returns are to be submitted by every registered dealer. The said rule provides for quarterly returns which rule 4 lays down are to be submitted within one month from the expiry of each quarter to which the return relates. When read with the definition of the term "year" in section 2(21) of the Act, to which I have already referred, the returns would, therefore, have to be furnished for each financial year commencing from 1st April of that year in respect of each quarter. Having set out the statutory provisions which are relevant for the purpose of this reference, we must now proceed to deal with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Commissioner of Sales Tax. It is the contention of Mr. Banaji that the Central Act contains no machinery for the levy, assessment and collection of taxes and that, therefore, the machinery of the State Act which is incorporated thereby would have to be resorted to, and the relevant provisions of the said Act and Rules show that liab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e taken of the scheme of the relevant provisions of the Acts and the rules is supported by high authority, in so far as there is a decision of the Supreme Court which fortifies the same. In the case of Mathra Parshad Sons v. The State of Punjab[1962] 13 S.T.C. 180., the Supreme Court, in construing the parallel provisions of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, took the same view. The facts of that case were that the appellant in that case used to sell manufactured tobacco and was registered as a dealer under section 7 of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, and was paying sales tax on manufactured tobacco. On 1st April, 1954, the Punjab Tobacco Vend Fees Act, 1954, came into force, and on 27th of September, 1954, the Government issued a notification exempting manufactured tobacco from the levy of sales tax by including item 51 in the Schedule of exemptions, but the said notification did not mention the date from which the exemption would operate. The question which arose, therefore, was whether the notification took effect only from the 27th of September, 1954, when it was issued, or from the beginning of the financial year. The Supreme Court by a majority held ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
