TMI Blog1990 (9) TMI 317X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sales Tax) Act, 1941, and clause (i) of subsection (2) of section 4 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954, as inserted by West Bengal Act 23 of 1977 with effect from October 10, 1977, and whether the said provisions in the said two Acts as amended by the West Bengal Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1990 and also sub-sections (2A) and (2B) of section 26A of the 1941 Act and section 28 of the 1954 Act, inserted by the West Bengal Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1990, are constitutionally valid. Vires of the relevant rules framed for carrying out the purpose of 1990 amendments is also under challenge. 2.. The case of the applicants may be summed up thus: In RN-10 of 1990, Rasoi Ltd. is the first applicant The applicant No. 2 is the Managing Director of the company, who is also a shareholder. The company is a registered dealer under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It carries on the business of manufacturing vanaspati, soap and allied products for sale. The company has a wide network of distributors of its products throughout India. It has also a large number of consignment agents and branches all over India. It despatches goods manufactured in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the manufacturers of northern and western States of India because of their proximity to the oil-growing region in the country. Moreover, in some of those States, there is no levy of sales tax on transfer of goods on consignment basis. Applicant claims that the tax paid by it under the impugned provisions upon transfer of goods outside West Bengal on consignment basis is not taken into account in considering the price structure of vanaspati. Applicant never charged any tax envisaged under the impugned provisions in the price of the products, when those are transferred to consignment agents outside West Bengal. Applicant paid from time to time, commencing from 1977, a sum of Rs. 63,87,915.27 as tax in accordance with the provisions of section 4(2)(i) of the 1954 Act and section 4(6)(ii) of the 1941 Act and the rules framed thereunder. 3.. It is complained that the State Legislature was not competent to impose any tax as done under section 4(6)(ii) of the 1941 Act and under section 4(2)(i) of the 1954 Act, which were brought into effect on October 10, 1977. The tax, whether paid on its own by the applicant or recovered upon assessment by the respondents, has been so paid or reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts have or have not been made. Applicants also claimed an interest at the rate of 2 per cent, per month in respect of the amounts so paid. They wrote a letter to that effect to the respondents on January 20, 1990. 5.. Applicants filed a supplementary affidavit on March 16, 1990, stating that on February 26, 1990, the West Bengal Ordinance 2 of 1990 was promulgated purporting to amend the provisions of section 4(6) of the 1941 Act and section 4(2)(i) of the 1954 Act and challenging the validity of the Ordinance on the ground, inter alia, that it was promulgated with the direct and specific object of nullifying the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Goodyear India Ltd. [1990] 76 STC 71; AIR 1990 SC 781, so that the State of West Bengal would not be obliged to give effect to the said judgment and to refund the tax illegally levied and recovered from the applicants under the aforesaid provisions of the Acts of 1941 and 1954. The Ordinance is also assailed on the grounds that it has invaded the area of judiciary, the conditions precedent for promulgating an Ordinance as laid down in article 213 of the Constitution did not exist and the amendments brought by the Ordinance in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions in the Act was introduced without the sanction of the President. The retrospective imposition of the purchase tax is alleged to be violative of articles 301, 14, 19(1)(g) and other provisions of the Constitution and said to be arbitrary and unreasonable. The provisions of the amending Act of 1990 are attacked on the same grounds as the provisions of the Ordinance of 1990 were assailed. The prayer is for declaration that the amended provisions imposing the aforesaid tax with retrospective effect from October 10, 1977 and the other provisions in the said Act of 1990 relating to the said tax are unconstitutional and void and for refund of the same amount as stated in RN-13 together with the same rate of interest. A supplementary affidavit was affirmed on July 3, 1990, challenging the validity of the rules newly framed in consequence of the amendments effected by the Act of 1990. In doing so, the 1990 Amendment Act is termed as colourable exercise of the power of the State Legislature, for, what it could not directly do, has been attempted to be done indirectly. The rules are said to be vague, ambiguous and indefinite, making it possible to be arbitrarily applied. The returns and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its branches and agents outside West Bengal for sale. The Commercial Tax Officer (respondent No. 1) levied and collected from the applicant purchase tax to the tune of Rs. 24,04,748.86 for the period from 1977-78 to 1984-85 under section 4(6)(ii) of the 1941 Act. Assessments for the aforesaid period have already been completed. Between October 10, 1989 and December 31, 1989, applicant paid a further aggregate amount of Rs. 17,10,742.54 for the years 1985-86 to 1988-89 towards the said tax under section 4(6)(ii). Accordingly, it is claimed, a total amount of Rs. 41,16,117.41 has been paid by or realised from the applicant as purchase tax under section 4(6)(ii). Levy of such purchase tax on disposal of manufactured goods otherwise than by way of sale within the State of West Bengal should be declared ultra vires the State Legislature on the ground that it was in pith and substance a tax on consignment which was within the exclusive field of the Parliament. The Supreme Court in the case of Goodyear India Ltd. [1990] 76 STC 71; AIR 1990 SC 781 took the view that despatch of goods by a manufacturer to his own branches outside the State of manufacture did not amount to "sale" or "dispos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of sale in West Bengal. Upon a reference to the recommendation of the Law Commission of India, it has been stated that by the Fortysixth Amendment of the Constitution, tax on inter-State consignment of goods has been included in entry 92B of the Union List of the Seventh Schedule and, therefore, the Parliament alone is competent to legislate any enactment for imposing such a tax. The competence of State Legislature under entry 54 of the State List does not include a tax on consignment of goods outside the State and moreover the power under entry 54 is confined to the sale or purchase of goods and does not extend to mere despatch or consignment thereof not amounting to sale or purchase. The impugned provision is alleged also to be violative of articles 14, 303, 304, etc. Thus, the company prayed for a declaration that the relevant provisions of the 1954 Act as amended in 1977 and 1978 are beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature and invalid and ultra vires the Constitution, for quashing the assessments and notices for assessment and demand and for restraining the respondents from levying, imposing and collecting the said purchase tax under the said provisions. A s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amended provisions seek to clarify and pinpoint, it is claimed, the taxable event so that the levy of purchase tax may not suffer from any of the infirmities pointed out by the Supreme Court in the said judgment. It is a case of minor repair for removing a defect or lacuna. The grounds made out by the applicants against the amended provisions are all denied. The Ordinance was promulgated in compliance of article 213 for removing the defects or lacuna pointed out by the Supreme Court so that purchase tax might be intra vires the Constitution. By the amendments, the taxable event has been totally delinked from despatch of the manufactured product by way of stock transfer or consignments. 11.. No affidavit-in-opposition was filed by respondents in RN-11, 12 and 13. Respondents filed an opposition in RN-259. In brief, their case is similar to that in RN-15 and 10 and further that the amendments made by the West Bengal Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1990, have cured the infirmities in the pre-amended provisions and that in view of the retrospective effect of the amended provisions from October 10, 1977 and in view of the validating provisions inserted by the amending Act of 1990, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The learned State Representative submitted that all these cases having raised constitutional questions of identical nature, affidavits-in-opposition filed in some of the cases may be taken as also filed in the cases where none has been filed. 12.. Having regard to the points of controversy and for the sake of adequate appreciation thereof, we set out below the relevant provisions, both unamended and amended, including the new validating clauses in the Acts of 1941 and 1954. (A) Prior to amendment in 1990. As amended in 1990 with effect from October 10, 1977. Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. Act, 1941. Section 4. Incidence of taxaSection 4. Incidence of taxation.tion.- * * * * * * (6) Every dealer, who has (6) Every dealer, who has become liable to pay tax under become liable to pay tax under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (4) of this section or subsub-section (4) of this section or subsection (3) of section 8 and is section (3) of section 8 and is registered under this Act, shall, in registered under this Act, shall, in addition to the tax referred to therein, addition to the tax r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with effect from October 10, 1977, as under: "(iiia) purchases, other than those referred to in clause (iii), or clause (v), of goods liable to tax under clause (ii) of sub-section (6) of section 4 for use directly in the manufacture of goods in West Bengal or in the packing in West Bengal of goods so manufactured for sale in West Bengal: Provided that where specified purchase price of goods, other than that in respect of purchases referred to in clause (iii) or clause (v), cannot be fully identified by a dealer, the specified purchase price in respect of purchases referred to in this clause shall be determined in such manner as may be prescribed;" (D) By the Amendment Act of 1990 a validation clause was inserted after sub-section (2) of section 26A of the 1941 Act by way of new subsections (2A) and (2B) as reproduced below: "(2A) Notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court, tribunal or authority, all taxes on purchases liable to tax under clause (ii) of sub-section (6) of section 4 levied or collected or purported to have been levied or collected before the commencement of the West Bengal Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1990, shall be deemed always to have bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no clause (iia) before the 1990 amendment.] Provided that where specified purchase price of goods, other than that in respect of purchase referred to in clause (ii) or clause (iii), cannot be fully identified by a dealer, the specified purchase price in respect of purchases referred to in this clause shall be determined in such manner as may be prescribed;". [This clause was newly inserted.] Sub-sections (6) and (7) were omitted with effect from October 10, 1977 by the 1990 Amendment. (F) A new validating clause as section 28 was inserted by the 1990 Amendment in the 1954 Act. It runs as follows: "28. Validation and exemption.-(1) Notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court, tribunal or authority, all taxes on purchases liable to tax under clause (i) of sub-section (2) of section 4 levied or collected or purported to have been levied or collected before the commencement of the West Bengal Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1990, shall be deemed always to have been validly levied or collected in accordance with the provisions of this Act as amended by the said Act; and accordingly, no suit or other proceeding shall be maintained or continued in any court or before any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... legislation exclusively assigned to the Parliament under item 92B of the Union List, though it is called a purchase tax. Secondly, the impugned provisions in both the Acts are invalid under articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 301, because it is a fresh imposition levied with retrospective effect from October 10, 1977, and because machinery provisions are wanting as to assessment, appeal, etc., for such retrospective taxation. Thirdly, the validation clauses introduced by the 1990 Act in the form of sub-sections (2A) and (2B) of section 26A of the 1941 Act and section 28 of the 1954 Act are invalid and inoperative on the grounds that the State Legislature cannot validate any tax or levy and collection thereof regarding which it was not competent to legislate and that the infirmities of the relevant legislation were not removed by the 1990 amendments. These clauses are further assailed on the ground that they tend to nullify the judgment in Goodyear India's case [1990] 76 STC 71; AIR 1990 SC 781, and that amounts to invasion of the sphere of the judiciary. 15.. The case of the respondents (State) is that the impugned tax is a tax on purchase of goods and the impugned enactment was validly m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 92B of List I. The State Legislature enacted a colourable legislation in the name of a tax on purchase of goods, the subject-matter being as if, covered by entry 54 of List II. According to them, the State Legislature had done or has wanted to do something indirectly which it could not do directly. If in reality the tax is, in the nature or effect, a consignment tax, the State Legislature has no competence to legislate thereon, notwithstanding the fact that the nomenclature given to the tax apparently indicates otherwise. Mr. P.K. Chakraborty, the learned State Representative, argued on behalf of the respondents that it was a case of overlapping to the permitted degree from entry 54 of List II to the domain of entry 92B of List I. According to him, it is not a consignment tax falling under entry 92B of List I. The overlapping occurs because of a remote connection with consignment or despatch of goods outside the State. But Mr. Somen Bose and Dr. D. Pal, learned Advocates arguing the cases for applicants in this batch of applications, opposed the claim of mere overlapping and submitted, on the contrary, that this is a case of indirect and substantial legislation encroaching upon or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tute is examined to ascertain its 'pith and substance', or its 'true nature and character', for the purpose of determining whether it is legislation with respect to matters in this List or that." Applying this rule, it was held that the Bengal Money Lenders Act was in pith and substance an Act dealing with money-lending, and it did not invade the field of Federal legislation. 20.. Then Mr. Bose and also Dr. D. Pal placed reliance on the case of K.C.G. Narayan Deo v. State of Orissa AIR 1953 SC 375. In paragraph 9 of the judgment, the Supreme Court enunciated the same rule in these words"If the Constitution of a State distributes the legislative powers amongst different bodies, which have to act within their respective spheres marked out by specific legislative entries, or if there are limitations on the legislative authority in the shape of fundamental rights, questions do arise as to whether the Legislature in a particular case has or has not, in respect to the subject-matter of the statute or in the method of enacting it, transgressed the limits of its constitutional powers. Such transgression may be patent, manifest or direct, but it may also be disguised, coven and indirect a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd that the tax is levied on consignments or despatches. Mr. Chakraborty, the learned State Representative, contended that the amended provisions have retrospectively fastened the incidence of the impugned tax only to the purchase of goods without any connection with subsequent event, namely, consignment outside the State in the course of trade or commerce. By referring to the Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the West Bengal Taxation Laws (Amendment) Bill, 1990, he submitted that the infirmities in the old law, as pointed out by the Supreme Court in [1990] 76 STC 71; AIR 1990 SC 781 (Goodyear India Ltd. v. State of Haryana), have now been removed and at the same time it has been ensured by amending various provisions as well as by framing relevant rules that the burden of the tax remains equal to the burden of the tax imposed by the erstwhile provisions with effect from October 10, 1977. We have already reproduced the significant amendments effected to the relevant provisions. It will appear therefrom that in the 1941 Act, section 4(6)(ii), as amended, read with the newly inserted clause (iiia) and its proviso of sub-section (7) of section 5, produces the result that af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er submitted that the exemption or deduction provisions contained in the newly inserted clauses of the relevant provisions of the said Acts are independent provisions, in respect of which the State Legislature possesses the required legislative competence. Dr. Pal, appearing for one of the applicants, submitted that there can be no dispute that the State Legislature is competent to enact a law imposing tax on purchase of goods under entry 54 of List II and it is also competent to enact exemption or deduction provisions in respect of imposition of such tax being a power ancillary or incidental to the power to impose purchase tax, but with great force he submitted that the charging provisions under section 4 of both the Acts and the exemption provisions in those Acts whether contained in the same section or in other sections are not to be considered and interpreted in isolation and should be interpreted together as parts of a single scheme in their entirety so that the net result or effect of the legislation is obtained by application of the pith and substance rule. In this connection Dr. Pal placed reliance on the case of J.K. Steel Ltd. v. Union of India reported in AIR 1970 SC 117 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the goods purchased are altogether different from the goods manufactured and transferred out of the State. We are, therefore, of the opinion that it is not possible to interpret the charging provisions divorced from the exemption provisions for finding out the pith and substance of the impugned legislation. Similarly, it will be a faulty interpretation to consider the exemption provision segregated from the charging provision. The correct rule for the purpose of deciding legislative competence must be to interpret both the charging and the exemption provisions together so as to find out the true nature and character of the impugned legislation. 23.. In the context of the controversy raised here the true nature and character of the legislation in question turns upon identification of the taxable event or the event which attracts the tax. If the taxing event is consignment of goods as envisaged in entry 92B, only then the challenge will be successful. As held in the case of Goodyear India Ltd. [1990] 76 STC 71 (SC); AIR 1990 SC 781, "it is well-settled that what is the taxable event or what necessitates taxation in an appropriate statute, must be found out by construing the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same to other States obviously for the purpose of sale. That is the only conceivable course open to him. Therefore, in pith and substance, the taxable event to attract the tax is consignment of goods out of West Bengal otherwise than by way of sale. Despatch of goods for the purpose of sale is wholly different from despatch by way of sale. In the first case, sale has not taken place, while in the second case, it has. 24.. Mr. P.K. Chakraborty, the learned State Representative, submitted that the object of imposition of this purchase tax is to collect the full amount of tax from the manufacturers who purchased on paying a concessional rate of sales tax by furnishing a declaration that the goods were intended to be used directly in manufacturing goods for sale in West Bengal but ultimately the manufactured goods are not sold in West Bengal in breach of that declaration. This may or may not be a good justification for upholding the reasonableness of the impost. As that question is not raised before us, we do not propose to enter into it. But assuming that it is a good justification, the impugned law cannot overcome its rudimentary infirmity (i.e., legislative incompetence) by just ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Supreme Court and those which are under our consideration should not dislodge the ratio of the decision in Goodyear's case [1990] 76 STC 71 (SC); AIR 1990 SC 781. It is not possible to distinguish the decision on the ground mentioned by the learned State Representative. Dr. Pal rightly termed this submission of Mr. Chakraborty as very "bold". 26.. Reliance was placed by Mr. Chakraborty on our decision in the case of Jindal (India) Ltd. reported in [1990] 76 STC 367. In that case we had upheld the contention of the Revenue that the tax imposed under the unamended provisions of section 4(6)(ii) of the 1941 Act was a tax on purchase, there being only a postponement of the charge. Till then, we did not have the advantage of the decision in Goodyear's case [1990] 76 STC 71 (SC); AIR 1990 SC 781, which had not yet been rendered by the Supreme Court. The effect of that decision is that our decision in [1990] 76 STC 367 [Jindal (India) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal] in so far as it relates to the question of legislative competence in respect of the relevant taxing provision stands overruled by implication. Incidentally also, our decision in Jindal (India) Ltd.'s case [1990] 76 STC 367 c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bringing the impugned amendments was by way of abundant caution. In the first instance, this is not really correct, because the Supreme Court's decision in [1990] 76 STC 71; AIR 1990 SC 781 (Goodyear India Ltd. v. State of Haryana) declares the law, the ratio of which is binding under article 141. Secondly, the State Legislature considered it exactly so, for which it proceeded to amend the provisions, though unsuccessfully, in the light of the ratio of the said decision. The question of removing infirmities pointed out by the Supreme Court arose, because the infirmities were making the provisions ultra vires. Assuming that Mr. Chakraborty's contention is correct, what difference does it make? Nothing, really. Whether the new provisions were brought in as a measure of abundant caution or as a mandatory step, the new provisions, as they are, impose a tax which is charged on the taxable event of consignment or despatch of manufactured goods unrelated to the act of purchase. Mr. Somen Bose, learned Advocate for many of the applicants, preferred to use the term "exodus" used by Ranganathan, J., in [1990] 76 STC 71 (SC) at page 115; AIR 1990 SC 781 at page 808 (Goodyear India Ltd. v. St ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt aspects. But the fact that there is an overlapping does not detract from the distinctiveness of the aspects". In other words, Mr. Chakraborty contended that in this case also, the impugned amended provisions of the 1941 Act and the 1954 Act have not invaded the field of legislation reserved for the Parliament under entry 92B, but there is merely an overlapping, because the tax is basically on purchases, though it may have some connection with consignment only incidentally. 30.. It is well-settled that the Constitution is a living instrument which must be liberally interpreted, but, of course, without perverting its language. It is also well-settled that the legislative power enumerated in the entries of the different Lists of the Seventh Schedule should be construed in their widest possible amplitude and a legislative power carries with it all ancillary and subsidiary powers connected therewith. But ancillary and incidental powers can be exercised only in aid of the main topic of legislation and not otherwise. Thus, in the ultimate analysis, the question whether it is a case of mere overlapping and incidental encroachment depends upon the result of the pith and substance test, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n entry 92B of List I. That being the position, there is no question of overlapping or incidental or marginal encroachment. The main topic of legislation is not purchase tax, but tax on consignments. There is clearly invasion of the Parliament's field of legislation by the State Legislature. In the result, we are of the opinion that the impugned provisions of the 1941 Act and the 1954 Act, as they stand after the 1990 Amendment Act, are ultra vires the Constitution because of lack of competence on the part of the State Legislature to enact the same. 32.. Now, it is a settled rule that, if it is possible to save the constitutionality of a provision by striking down only the offending part, the courts will try to do that. This is sometimes called the rule of severability. But a corollary should be added to the above rule to the effect that if the offending part is not severable, or when segregated, the remaining part becomes inoperative or takes a shape which does not reflect the intention and policy of the Legislature, in that case the impugned provision cannot be saved by removing the offending part. When a Legislature enacts a law, generally it does so with a certain intention a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... visions were challenged with respect to retrospective operation from October 10, 1977 on several grounds. The validation clauses contained in sub-sections (2A) and (2B) of section 26A of the 1941 Act and section 28 of the 1954 Act, as incorporated by the 1990 Amendment Act, were also challenged as ultra vires the Constitution and invalid on several grounds. The validation was sought to be made on the premise that the tax levied or collected or purported to have been levied or collected under the old provisions shall be deemed always to have been validly levied or collected in accordance with the new provisions. Therefore, if the impugned new provisions are struck down as invalid, the validation clauses become rootless and as a corollary they also are required to be struck down. Since the new provisions have to be quashed, the question of validity or otherwise of retrospective effect thereof becomes pointless. It also goes out along with the provisions themselves. In that view of the matter, the relevant new provisions and the impugned validating provisions along with the relevant rules must be struck down as invalid and unconstitutional. Such being the position, the other point ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions of the Haryana and Maharashtra Acts which were considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Goodyear India Ltd. [1990] 76 STC 71; AIR 1990 SC 781. The reference to furnishing declarations does not make any real difference. After Goodyear India's case [1990] 76 STC 71 (SC); AIR 1990 SC 781, section 13AA of the Bombay Sales Tax Act was newly enacted in the year 1989. That provision was challenged before the High Court of Bombay in the case of Wipro Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra reported in [1990] 78 STC 114. The learned single Judge of the Bombay High Court passed an interim order with reasons in that case. Learned Advocates appearing for the applicants before us, relied on the said interim order reported in [1990] 78 STC 114 (Bom) (Wipro Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra). In any case, the impugned old provisions of the 1941 Act and the 1954 Act of West Bengal are clearly outside the legislative competence of the State Legislature and are, therefore, ultra vires the Constitution and invalid. The question of striking down the same does not arise as the State Legislature itself being conscious of the infirmities pointed out by the Supreme Court in Goodyear's case [1990] 76 STC 71; A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refund is arising out of the judgment and order which we are making in these cases. Our jurisdiction is not under any of the provisions of the 1941 Act or the 1954 Act. In terms of article 323B of the Constitution of India our jurisdiction is a substitute of that under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Reference may be made to the ratio of the decision in the case of J.B. Chopra v. Union of India reported in AIR 1987 SC 357. That being the position, sections 10B of the 1941 Act and 8B of the 1954 Act have no manner of application to the present cases. Although the claim of interest was not pressed by the applicants at the time of hearing, reference had been made to the order passed by Sujata Manohar, J., of the Bombay High Court in the case of Wipro Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [1990] 78 STC 114 (Bom). In course of making that order the learned Judge observed in paragraph 3 as follows: "The Supreme Court, at the stage when it granted special leave in these matters, ordered that in case the petitioners succeed the amount of tax together with interest recovered from them by the authorities shall be refunded with interest at 12 per cent per annum." In the present cases, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
