9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 962X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was enacted by the Tripura Legislative Assembly and received the assent of the Governor on June 12, 1987 and published in the Gazette on June 12, 1987. Section 1(3) reads as follows: "(3) Clause (i) of section 3 and section 4 shall be deemed to have come into force on the twelfth day of July, 1984 and all other provisions shall come into force at once." 4.. In these writ petitions the petitioners have challenged the validity of the above provisions and has prayed for striking out the same and also prayed for setting aside the order of assessment or revision passed on the basis of the said amended provisions of the Act. 5.. I have heard Mr. S. Saha, learned counsel for the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vision, it is proposed that when goods are transferred under a works contract, only the taxable items involved therein would be made taxable at the rate given in the Schedule." 7.. In the case of Rai Ramkrishna v. State of Bihar [1963] 50 ITR 171; AIR 1963 SC 1667, the apex Court held: "The position, therefore, appears to be well-settled that if in its essential features a taxing statute is within the legislative competence of the Legislature which passed it by reference to the relevant entry in the list, its character is not necessarily changed merely by its retrospective operation so as to make (sic take) the said retrospective operation outside the legislative competence of the said Legislature........." 8.. Learned co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l. 10.. The impugned amending Act was set aside in D. Cawasji and Co. [1985] 58 STC 1; 1985 SCC (Tax) 63 not because of retrospective operation but on the ground the amending act has tried to circumvent the decision of the High Court. The ratio of the decision of D. Cawasji and Co. [1985] 58 STC 1; 1985 SCC (Tax) 63 was distinguished by the apex Court in a later case of Entertainment Tax Officer v. Ambae Picture Palace [1995] 96 STC 338; (1994) 1 SCC 209. The decision in Rai Ramkrishna [1963] 50 ITR 171; AIR 1963 SC 1667 was reiterated by the apex Court in the case of Khyerbari Tea Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam AIR 1964 SC 925. The apex Court observed: "It is true that there are some provisions in the Constitution which prohibit retrosp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (List ii) of the State List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India read with clause (29A) of article 366 of the Constitution. In the present case, as per the earlier provisions sales tax at 4 per cent was to be collected and paid by the contractor on the entire turnover under a works contract but by the amending act it was provided that when goods are transferred under a works contract, only the taxable items involved therein would be made taxable at the rate given in the schedule. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that instead of earlier tax at 4 per cent the petitioner is now required to pay tax at the schedule rate which varies from 4 per cent to 12 per cent. Considering the item involved as per the sc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect the required tax from the concerned departments of the State and in case they are liable to pay the tax as per the amended provisions, they may be allowed to collect the same from the concerned departments, which also happens to be Government department. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also produced a copy of the decision of this Court in a case of Civil Rule No. 2 of 1979 (Shri Binayendra Lal Roy v. State of Tripura) disposed of on February 24, 1989*. This Court gave the following directions: "In this connection, Shri Majumder has submitted on instruction that other dealers have collected the tax from the purchasing departments and paid the same to the Sales Tax Department. We would like the petitioners also to do so. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
