COMMERCIAL TAX-OFFICER, BANGALORE,. ETC. ETC. versus SRI VENKATESWARA OIL MILLS & ANR. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1973] 3 S.C.R. 742 · Decided: 16-03-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. HEGDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

742 
COMMERCIAL TAX-OFFICER, BANGALORE, .ETC. ETC. 
v. 
SRI VENKATESWARA OIL MILLS & ANR. ETC. ETC. 
March 16, 1973 
[K. S. HEGDE, P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ.] 
Central Sales Tax (Amendment) A.ct, 1959, s. 10 and Mysore Sales 
Tax Rules 1957, r. JS-Retrospective amendment-Jn correcting 
mis· 
takes it is the law as amended that has lo be applied-Rule 38 has to be 
read with s. 10 of amending Act-A.ssessees cannot have· adi·antate of 
s. 10(1) without discharging burden placed on them ins. 10(1). 
After 
the 
decision of this 
Court in Yadalam Lakshminarasimhiah 
Setty's case the President 'of India on June 9, 1969 promulgated tbe Cen· 
tral Sales Tax (Amendment) Ordinance 1969 with tbe object of super· 
seding the effect of that decision and to bring to tax sales effected 
by 
every dealer in the course of inter State trade or commerce notwithstand· 
ing the fact that no tax could have beeo levied under the sales-tax law 
ot the appropriate State if that sale had been an intra Sta!IY sale. 
That 
provision was given retrospective effect but s. 10( 1) df the Amendment 
Act provided that if during the relevaJll period a dealer had not collected 
sales-tax on the ground tha~ sales-tax was not leviable on the sale in ques-
tion under the unamended Act be would not be liable to pay sale .. tax 
under the amended Act. The burden of proving, however, that no sales-tax 
had been collected was pla~d by s. 10(2) on the dealer. The Ordmance 
was replaced by the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1969. After 
the Amendment Act came into force the sales-tax authorities sought to 
reopen under r. 38 of the Mysore Sales Tax Rules 1957 the assessments 
made on certain dealers on the ground that these assessments suffered from 
mistakes apparent on the record. 
In writ petitions filed by the dealers, 
the High Court of Mysore accepted their contention that the Sales Tax 
Officer lsid no jurisdiction to !'e9SSess the asoessees as it was impermissibl• 
for him to receive any additional evidence with a view to decide the ques· 
tion whether the assessees had collected sales-tax on the turnover in ques-
tion and consequently he could not take any assistance 
from rule 38. 
Allowing the· appeals by special leave filed by the Revenue. 
HELD : It is well settled that if a subsequent legislation is given re-
trospective effect and is deem~d to hll)>e been in force at the time when 
the order to be rectified was made, then the law to be applied is the 
amended law. 
In other worys, for finding out whether there is a mistake 
apparent on the record the authority has to look to the amended law and 
not to the law that was in force at the time the original order \\'as made. 
[748Hl 
Rule 38 of the Mysore Sales Tax Rules must be read with s. 10 of 
the Amendment Act. 
If so read it is clear that the assessin2 authorities 
be
1fore reassessing the dealers should afford them the opportunft}' to S'ltisfy 
them that they have not co'lected the tax. 
If the impact of s. IO is ignor· 
ed, as the High Court had done, then the assessments 
in -question afe 
liable to be reopened whether the assessees had collected tax or not. The 
assessees cannot have the benefit of s. 10(1) but not the burden of nroof 
placed on them under s. 10(2). [746E] 
· 
Yadafan1 Laksfuninarasilnhial1 Setty and Sons v. State of Mysore, 13 
S.T.C. 583: State of Mysore v. Yada/Qm Lakshminarasimhiah Setty and 
Sons, 16, S.T.C. 231 (S.C.) M. K .. Venkatachalam, Income-tax Officer and 
.A.nr. v. Bombcy Dying and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., 34 I.T.R. 143 and 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
E 
G 
H 
C.T.O. v. VENKATESWARA OIL MILLS (Hegde, J,) 
743 
.A 
Mabwd Arecanut Syndicate (P) Lrd. represented by Its M"""l'r K. 
Rania Rao, Arecanut Merchants, Shimoga_ v. Commercial Tax 
Qfficer, 
Shimoga and Ors. 
Writ Petition No. 5223 of 1969-0.vil Appeal No. 
2632 of 1972, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 2593, 
2594-2596, 2599, 2601-2605, 2609-2614, 2615, 2616, 2618, 
8 
2619-2627, 2628, 2629-2631, 2632 and 2634 of 1972. 
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
O~tober 12 and 13, 1971, November 15, 1971, October 25, and 
13, 1971 and November 18, 1971 of the Mysore High Court at 
Bangalore in Writ Petitions Nos. 3978 of 1970, 1003-1005 of 
1971. 5542, 6343, 6428, 6466, 6469, 6790, 6988, 7035, 7057, 
c 
5504, 5514, 5525, 6001, 6082, 6110, 5959, 6111, 6775, 2779, 
5538, 5540, 6080, 6081 and 6084 of 1969, 2780, 2925, 2926, 
3347170, 5006 of 1970, 997 an

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.