9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 889X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ades and brushes etc., Without the Tax Clearance Certificate, the IMFL Certificate could not be renewed and therefore the Assessee had to approach the concerned authority under the provisions of the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act for the said purpose. The said application was rejected by the learned Assessing Authority by the impugned order dated 09.03.2000 with the following observations. "Inasmuch as they deal in alcoholic beverages (IMFL & Beer) and so long as they deal in cigarattes, notwithstanding the fact that they deal in other general shop goods like Nestle products, blades, brushes etc., they are dealers in alcoholic beverages / cigarattes as per the definition and are liable to pay turnover tax under Section 4-A unquivocally. The provisions of the Act, nowhere requires that the levy "turnover tax" under Section 4-A that a dealer should exclusively be "a dealer in alcoholic beverages" or in "cigarattes" and that the provisions nowhere exempt a dealer in both these goods as well as in other goods from the purview of Section 4-A. The proviso to Section 4-A excludes only the turnover on: (a) Sale or purchase of goods in inter State (b) Sale or purchase of goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods; (e) all amounts allowed as discount, provided that such discount is allowed in accordance with the regular practice of the dealer or is in accordance with the terms of a contract or agreement entered into in a particular case and provided also that the accounts show that the purchaser has paid only the sum originally charged less discount; (f) all amounts allowed to purchasers in respect of goods returned by them to the dealer when the goods are taxable on sales provided that the goods were returned within a period of three months from the date of delivery of the goods and the accounts show the date on which the goods were returned and the date on which and the amount for which refund was made; and (g) all amounts received from the sellers in respect of goods returned to them by the dealer, when the goods are taxable on the purchase value provided that the goods were returned within a period of three months from the date of delivery of the goods and the accounts show the date on which the goods were returned and the date on which and the amount for which refund was received. (2) The provisions of this Act and the Rules made thereunder shall, so far as may be, app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evy under Entry 54 of the State List is made subject to under the Constitution. The position is the same when we look at Article 286 of the Constitution. If any declared goods which are referred to in Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 are involved in such transfer, supply or delivery, which is referred to in clause (29-A) of Article 366, the sales tax law of a State which provides for levy of sales tax thereon will have to comply with the restrictions mentioned S ection 15 o f the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 70. No State can therefore by describing an item as a luxury, seek to levy tax on its supply. It cannot be disputed that as far as UP and AP are concerned, were it not for their Interpretation of Entry 62 of List II, the tax would be referable only to Entry 54 List II. If Entry 62 List II does not allow the taxation of goods, the levy would not be constitutionally sustainable. 71. In our opinion to read Entry 62 List II as including articles of luxury cannot allow all these constitutional restrictions to be by-passed allowing States to levy tax on the supply of goods by describing them as luxury goods. As has been rightly contended by Mr. Parasaran appearing fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Union of India and Others) resulted in a judgment by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 14.07.2011, in which the Division Bench of this Court held as under: "20. Thus, the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957, contemplates that where in the financial year, there is a levy and collection of tax under a State Law on the sale or purchase of tobacco by or under any law of that State, the said State shall not be entitled to any share as regards the collection of additional duties and excise. Thus while Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 does not bar the State from levying any tax and collecting the same in respect of the goods attracting additional duties of excise, all that it bars herein is that by reason of levy and collection of tax by that State, under the State law, the said State is not entitled to receive its share on the levy and collection of additional duties of excise by the Centre. Thus the State is prohibited from getting its share in the benefit of additional duties and excise, unless the Central Government, by order, otherwise directs. Thus the prohibition as regards goods suffering additional duty of ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year 1999-2000 under Assessment Order No.75 dated 12.1.2001. In the light of the order passed in W.P.No.18038 of 1999, the said writ petition, challenging the assessment order, stands dismissed. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has approached this Court immediately after the receipt of the assessment order dated 12.1.2001, in fitness of things, we grant the assessee four weeks' time to file an appeal, from the date of receipt of the order of this Court, if the assessee desires to file an appeal as against the order of assessment. 24. In the result, W.P.No.18038 of 1999, W.A.No.77 of 2000 and W.P.No.2991 of 2001 stand dismissed. No costs. Connected W.M.P.No.26244 of 1999 also stands dismissed. " 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the clear opinion that the present Writ Petitions were not only premature even when the same was filed, but also, barring the ground of validity of the provisions of Section 4-A of the Act, the same were not even maintainable. The ground of validity of the said provision appears to have been raised as a tangent attack just to maintain the writ petitions. The question, really if any arises, is only of the appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
