1978 (11) TMI 136

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ty was justified to confirm the appellate order dated 1st July, 1975, for the year 1970-71?" The assessee is a dealer in coal. It used to place orders with collieries in the States of Bengal and Bihar. While the goods were in transit it endorsed the railway receipts in favour of a third party, who took delivery of the goods in the State of U.P. The assessee is an unregistered dealer. The dispute is as to whether the assessee could be taxed by the sales tax authorities in U.P. or in the State where the movement of the goods started. The revising authority has, following the decisions of this Court in the cases of Kasturi Lal Har Lal v. Commissioner, Sales Tax[1972] 29 S.T.C. 495., Prabhat Coal Traders v. State of U.P.1974 U.P.T.C. 103. and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tedly be liable to be assessed in U.P. The question, however, is whether the legislature intended this. There are a number of considerations which impel one to hold that the proviso to section 9 as inserted by the amending Act cannot be applied to the assessment years previous to that in which it was promulgated. In the first place, there is nothing to indicate such a retrospectivity, as section 6 of the amending Act, which introduces the proviso, discloses no such intention. It is a settled principle of interpretation that unless there is clear indication in the amending statute, amendments in a taxing statute have to be taken to be prospective. When one looks to the amending Act there is clear indication that the amended proviso is undou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... an assessment can be made in the State from where the subsequent sale has been effected. The proviso alters the jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer to make the assessments and to impose tax. It is undoubtedly true that the tax imposed is a Central tax, whether it be imposed in U.P. or in the State from where the movement of goods started. But this does not alter the character of the proviso, which relates to the jurisdiction to make the assessment. In the case of S. Natarajan v. D. Samson, Joint Commercial Tax Officer (Central Intelligence Wing), Madras-5[1971] 28 S.T.C. 319. (sic), it has been held that the question of jurisdiction is one relating to power and does not pertain to the domain of procedure. Inasmuch as the proviso to sectio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X