TMI Blog1991 (7) TMI 306X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods falling under Schedule IV are declared goods. Therefore they are protected by the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The rate of tax was 4 per cent. The taxation in relation to seeds as cereals prevailed up to 1980. In some cases, the taxing authorities took the view that seeds will not fall under the entry "cereals". Therefore, sales tax was levied under section 5(1) of the Act, the charging section. As a result the levy was at multiple points. Those levies were also subject to surcharge and additional tax. It may be mentioned here that this surcharge and additional tax are inapplicable to declared goods. Having regard to the differing methods of taxation, in December, 1981, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes issued a circular and clari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eing coated with poisonous preservatives and meant for sowing, would be taxable under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, during the different periods as under: (i) at 1 per cent multi-point under the provision to sub-section (1) of section 5 during the period up to September 7, 1976; (ii) at 4 per cent multi-point under sub-section (1) of section 5 from September 8, 1976 to November 14, 1981; (iii) at 2 per cent multi-point under sub-section (1) of section 5 from November 15, 1981 onwards by virtue of Government Notification No. FD 165 CSL 80 dated November 10, 1981." As a result of this clarification and the direction, assessment of seeds had to be made under section 5(1) of the Act. A large number of dealers came to be affected t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been collected from the purchasers at the rates to which the appellant is subjected to but only at 4 per cent, the levy now demanded is arbitrary and unreasonable. The learned single Judge negatived all these contentions and held that the levy is one under entry 54 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. The clarification issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes had been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in S.V. Halavapalli and Sons v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [1984] 57 STC 343. Whatever might have been the position earlier, in so far as the period from April 1, 1980 to December 8, 1981 is concerned the direction issued by the Commissioner will govern. There can be no estoppel against a statute. The power to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to a case where Legislature chooses to exercise its legislative function. At pages 815 and 816 of AIR 1986 SC 806 it has been observed in paragraph 14 thus: "14. Of course we must make it clear, and that is also laid down in Motilal Sugar Mills case [1979] 44 STC 42 (SC); AIR 1979 SC 621 that there can be no promissory estoppel against the Legislature in the exercise of its legislative functions nor can the Government or public authority be debarred by promissory estoppel from enforcing a statutory prohibition. It is equally true that promissory estoppel cannot be used to compel the Government or a public authority to carry out a representation or promise which is contrary to law or which was outside the authority or power of the offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct. But where no such language is to be found it has been held by the courts that the person or authority exercising subordinate legislative function cannot make a rule, regulation or bye-law which can operate with retrospective effect.' The aforesaid principle was reiterated in a later decision in the case of Hukam Chand v. Union of India AIR 1972 SC 2427." But later on, concerning the retrospective nature of the rule, it was held in paragraphs 6 and 7 as under: "6. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that rule 4(i) as amended by the Orissa State Road Transport Corporation (Amendment) Rules, 1980, is retrospective in operation and it is also urged, on the authority of the aforesaid decisions, that the State Government is not comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d as under: "But learned counsel presses upon us that, in the present case in view of the practical difficulties and inequalities produced by the impugned retrospective legislation which was referred to earlier, we should hold it to be unreasonable and arbitrary. We do not think that these inequalities and practical difficulties, assuming they exist which may be but peripheral and procedural result, would be sufficient by themselves to render the retrospective effect unreasonable and to enable us to strike down the legislation as unconstitutional on that ground. A system of licensing and registration is not a sine qua non or a necessary condition to the validity of a single point scheme of taxation, prospective or retrospective. As a matt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
