LexM/S. MATHRA PRASHAD AND SONS. versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-- • f (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 913 "shall be executed on behalf of the GoTemor- General or Governor by such person and in such manner as he may direct or authorise". It therefore applies to consensual contracts which the Govern- ment makes and not to something which is also call- ed a contract but which the law brings into exis- tence by a fiction irrespective of the parties having agreed to it. Now, by its terms s. 70 of the Con- tract Act must be applied where !ts requisites exi!t, if it is necessary to imply a contract or to contem- plate the existence of a quasi-contract for applying the section that must be done and we do not think that s. 175(3) of the Government of India Act pre- vents that, nor are we aware of any other impedi- ment in this regard. This argument must also fail. We, therefore, feel thats. 70 of the Contract Act applies to this case and the decree of the High Court should be confirmed. Appeal dismissed. M/S. MATHRA PRASHAD AND SONS. v. STATE OF PUNJAB (B.P. Srnru, C.J., J. L. KAPUR, M. HmAYAT-ULLAH, J.C. SHAH AND J.R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.) Sales Tax-Exemptions-Notification is8'Ueil after com- mencement of financial 11ear-Whether effective from ilate of notification or trom eommenctment of financial year-East Punjab Genera Sales Tax Act, 1948 (E. P. of 1948). ss. 4,5,6, 10,11-Notification dated Sepltmber 27, 19ti4. Section 6( I) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided that no tax shall be payable on the sale of goods specified in the Schedule to the Act and that no dealer shall charge sale~ tax on the sale of goods which were "declared tax-free from time to time". Sub-section (2) of s. 6 empowe"d the State Government by notification to add or . to delete from the Schedule. On September 27, 1954, the State Government issued a notification under s. 6 (2) 1961 Slate of WtSt Bengal v. M/1. B. K. Mondal Sarka, J. 1961 December i 11161 Al /s. Matlua PraJhad Y. Suu, of Pu•;ab 9U SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. adding item 51 relating to manufactured tobacco to the Schedule. The appellant contcn<led that sale< tax wa' a yearly tax and hence the exemption, whenever given during the financial year, became operative as from the beginning thereof. Held, (per Sinha, C. ]., Hidayatullah, Shah and Mudholkar JJ., Kapur, J .. dissenting-) that the exemption operated for the rnrirc financial year. The tax was a ycarlv tax levied on the taxable turnover of a dralrr every \!Car though it wa. colkri.d in soffe casrs at the end of the year, in some cases quarterly and in otl1er cases monthly. If the exemption operated for the period for which the tax was payable accord in~ as it was annually, quarterly or monthly the tax "ou!d be different for differ•nt persons ; those paying annually would get exemption for the whole year but those paying quarterly or monthly would get the benefit in the quarter or month of the notification an<l not for earlier quarters or months. This could not have been ini.nded. The exemption \\ 0hcnevcr it came in, in the year for which the tax was payable, exempted saJ.,. throughout the year, unless the notific..1tion fixed the date for the commencement of the exemptiv11. C1m1mia.,,·ontr of Salu Ta:z, TJ. P. v. The Modi Sugar Mill• Ltd., [1961) 2 S.C.R. 189, referred to. P..- Kapur ].-The exemption became operative only from thr date of 'the notification. The tax wa• not a yearly tax. Tht- use of the words "tax-frre from time to time'' in -- • s. 6 (11 showed that the exemption could be l!'ivcn at anv • • time durinir the year and that it would oprratr from the date of the notification and not from the he"innin~ of the financial year. Otherv.·isr, an rx.emption Riven ·or an imposition made n•1T the end of the year will both operate from the beginning~ of the year. This v•as nt".vcr intended. Crvn, APPF.LLATE JumsDICTIOX: Civil Appeal No. 9 of61. Appeal from the jud!!mPnt and ordPr dated '-- May 7, 1959, of the Punjab High Court in L.P.A. No. 86 of 1956. M.C. Setalvad, Attorney-General of India, S.N. Andley, Rameslw·ar Nath and P.L. Vohra, for the appellant&. S. M. Sikri, Advocate-General, Punjab, B.K. Khanna and P.D. Menon, for the respondents. -- (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1115 1961. December, 5. The Judgment of Sinha C.J., Hidayatullah, Shah and Mudholkar JJ., was delivered bv Hidayatullah, J. Kapur, J., deliverefl a separate judgment. 1961 M/•. Mat/ua Pras
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.