9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 481X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, and have also gone through the judgment of the learned single judge See page [2012] 55 VST 24.. 3. The appellant is a registered dealer under the Act engaged in purchase and sale of cement within the State. Cement was an item taxable at the point of first sale under the First Schedule to the Act. However, when the Finance Bill, 2004 was introduced, "cement" along with another 20 items were proposed to be shifted from the First Schedule to the Fifth Schedule to the Act, which provides for two-point levy of tax on the said commodities. By virtue of the notification issued along with the Finance Bill 2004, all deale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te the assessment under section 17 of the Act." What is clear from the above provision is that registered dealers who have purchased several items stated in the above section including cement from April 1, 2004 to July 27, 2004 by paying tax at the rates shown in column (4) therein should pay tax on the resale of such goods as provided in column (6). Therefore, the intended purpose of section 17B is to give effect to tax proposal contained in the Finance Bill, 2004 until the Bill became operational, i.e., until the Finance Act, 2004 was passed and notified. 4. The appellant's case is that since the Finance Bill, 2004 as such was not passed, and along with other items "cement" was retained in the First Schedule for the year, i.e., 2004 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere has not been any increase in rate of tax for any period through the introduction of section 17B of the Act. On the other hand, the said provision was introduced to the Act only to get over the difficulty in levying tax in the course of assessment for the period the Finance Bill, 2004 was operational. The appellant has raised a further contention that the Finance, Act, 2005 which enacted section 17B cannot give retrospective effect from April 1, 2004 to July 27, 2004. We do not find any substance in this argument because as already stated, levy under section 17B for a specific period is to get over difficulties for assessment of dealers, who have followed the Finance Bill, 2004 for purchase and sale of goods. In other words those who hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
