Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2005 (6) TMI 541

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... less tax paid on the purchase of arrack at purchase point at the appropriate rate, i.e., 50 per cent and proposed to demand further amount from the petitioner. Petitioner filed exhibit P2 objection stating that under sub-section (14) of section 7 of the act, petitioner is entitled to deduct the tax paid at the purchase point and that there is no stipulation that the amount to be deducted cannot exceed 50 per cent as stated in the notice. Petitioner had also stated that since he was not registered dealer under the Act for certain period during the assessment year in question he was obliged to pay tax as provided under column (8) of item 1 of the Fifth Schedule particularly in view of the proviso to section 5(1)(v) and he had paid 62.5 per c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mputing the amount payable under sub-section (14) of section 7 of the Act. Consequently the proceedings initiated by respondents were upheld. Learned single Judge also noticed that in a case where the petitioner has paid tax in excess of what is due under the Act and the same has been made over to the Government by the dealer who collected the same in accordance with the provisions of rule 21 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963 and if the said dealer had not made any claim for refund of the excess amount so remitted cannot be said that the petitioner did not pay tax as provided under sub-section (14) of section 7 of the Act. Learned single Judge also took the view that if the petitioner is able to establish that the excess amount .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o paid while computing the tax payable at the compounded rate. Counsel submitted there is no justification for reading into section 7(14) tax paid is tax payable. Counsel further submitted petitioner has paid the tax demanded as per various notices and therefore entitled to refund of the amount. Learned Senior Government Pleader for Taxes Sri Raju Joseph on the other hand, contended that petitioner is entitled to deduct only the tax payable at the first point and submitted that the petitioner is entitled to get refund only if he had complied with rule 30 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963, on submission of application in prescribed form. Counsel submitted only if those formalities have been complied with petitioner would be enti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... State by a dealer who is liable to tax under section 5 12.5 At the point of first sale in the State by a dealer who is liable to tax under section 5 to a person other than a registered dealer. 62.5 Section 7(14) reads as follows: (14) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of section 5, any dealer who is having licence for retail sales in arrack, may at his option instead of paying tax in accordance with clause (v) of that sub-section, pay tax at twenty per cent of twice the rental amount payable by him under the Abkari Act 1 of 1077 for the licence, less tax paid by him for the purchase of arrack on the first sale point. Section 7(17) reads as follows: After the close of the year and on receipt of statemen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , altered or modified unless it is plainly necessary to do so in order to prevent a provision from being unintelligible, absurd, unreasonable, unworkable or totally irreconcilable with the rest of the statute. This rule of literal construction is firmly established and it has received judicial recognition in numerous cases. A Full Bench of this court in Kurian Abraham (Pvt.) Limited v. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) [2004] 137 STC 237; [2004] 1 KLT 498 [FB] held that the provisions of a taxing statute have to be construed strictly. A person cannot be taxed unless the provision clearly provides for it. The words of the statute or the relevant entry have to be given their true and natural meaning. The authority cannot add to the words. I .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates