TMI Blog1982 (2) TMI 289X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r class or description of goods would be taxed and the State Government in exercise of such power has prescribed a single point tax both in regard to sale and purchase of goods. The Orissa State Legislature enacted the Orissa Additional Sales Tax Act (24 of 1975) (hereinafter referred to as the "1975 Act") in exercise of its legislative powers under the said entry 54. Section 2 of the 1975 Act made provision for levy of additional tax on an escalated basis indicated in clauses (a), (b) and (c) thereof. The 1975 Act was amended by Orissa Act 3 of 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the "1979 Act") with effect from 1st April, 1979. Under the last Act, section 2 defined "declared goods" and clause (b) thereof provided that unless the context othe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alysis of section 3 of the Act of 1975 as amended, it should be held that the legislature has failed to provide a clear charging provision. Alternately, on a true interpretation thereof, it should be held that the legislative intention was to authorise imposition of an additional tax with an upper limit of one per cent as may be notified on the taxable turnover, which is the scheme under the 1947 Act; (iv) The Act does not lay down any guideline in respect of levy of tax under the latter Acts on essential commodities like medicine, food, etcetera. While goods like liquor and opium are exempt from taxation, the scope for multi-point additional tax on essential commodities should not be sustained; and (v) The Rules made under the 1975 Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act of 1975 as amended in 1979 is really not a supplemental Act and must be taken as an independent statute. The petitioners' counsel does not deny the power of the State Legislature to have legislated independently of the 1947 Act for raising additional sales tax without adopting the provisions of the Act of 1947. That being the position, merely because the Act of 1975 did not contain a long section dealing with definitions of the terms or did not independently provide for the machinery for computing the tax and recovering it or did not make miscellaneous provisions but adopted those in the Act of 1947, unless the context otherwise required, it did not make the Act of 1975 a supplemental one. It may be pointed out that the Act of 1975 ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not been assailed, the competency of the State Legislature to provide a different base and adopt a different scheme for taxation is not open to challenge. Once we hold that the two Acts are independent legislations coming from the common sovereign source, bulk of the argument advanced on the petitioners' side must stand rejected. 6.. In passing, we may indicate that on the supposition that the 1975 Act was supplemental to the main Act of 1947, it had been contended that while the maximum rate of tax under the 1947 Act was 13 per cent, prescribing one per cent of tax on the turnover under the 1975 Act made it possible for the State Government to levy a tax in excess of 13 per cent and this violated the maximum rate prescribed under section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r [1947] 15 ITR 302 (FC). On reference to section 3 of the 1975 Act, there is no room for dispute that there is a declaration of liability when the section says: "Every dealer shall be liable to pay additional sales tax." The Act adopts the scheme under the 1947 Act for quantification of liability as also for recovery of the damand. In the case of Wallace Brothers and Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City and Bombay Suburban District [1948] 16 ITR 240 (PC), the Privy Council pointed out that the liability to tax arises by virtue of the charging section alone. We are of the view that section 3(1) has the requisite elements of a charging section and there is no force in the contention of the petitioners that the words in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9.. The next contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that the Act does not lay down any guideline in respect of levy of tax under the 1975 Act on essential commodities like medicine, food, etcetera. It has been argued that while goods like liquor and opium are exempt from taxation, multi-point liability has been created in respect of essential articles. Strictly speaking, the argument is one relating to policy of taxation with which the court has ordinarily nothing to do. What items of human necessities would be taxed is ultimately a matter which the legislature has left to the State and the State Government in exercise of that power is entitled to exempt any specified or a class of goods from the liability of additional tax. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
