LexR. ABDUL QUADER AND CO. versus SALES TAX OFFICER, HYDERABAD
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
6 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS llllnd on a different footing from new assessments after the l9tll new law comes into force. It is true that Parliament provid- B•"'""'•' ed otherwise in this case and the Finance Act of 1950 said Milb that the old assessments would be carried on by the cnrres- s1au ofv. Modlryl. ponding officers under the Indian Income Tax Act. l;Jy mis- Bltarrd take however that provision was overlooked and the old W011Choo 1. assessments were made by the old officers under the ofd law. All that Parliament did by the Validating Act was to allow the old assessments to be made under the procedure provided under the old law and we can see no discrimination in the Validating Act on account of this fact. We are therefore of opinion that the Validating Act is not hit by Art. 14. Further we have not been able to understand how the valida- tion is of no effect so far as the present cases are concerned. The present cases are with reference to years I 940-48, that is before the accounting year ending on March 31, 1949. The assessments in these cases were carried on by the old officers under the old law and the Validating Act specifically vali- dates such assessments. In these circumstances we havo not been able to understand how it can be sa td that these assessments have not been validated by the Validating Act. The contention under this head must therefore also fail. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissM. R. ABDUL QUADER AND CO. ". SALES TAX OFFICER, HYDERABAD IP. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.1., K. N. WANCHOO, K. C. DAS GUPTA, J. C. SHAH AND N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAll, JJ.) klt1 Taz-Taz Collected otherwise than In accordance wltls tlae A.cl- Provi1ion enabling the Government to recover 1uch tax collt!ct6d- Not within tM competence of State Legisl01urt'--Connitlllion II/ India, Schedule VII, Entry 26 and 54 of List 11-Hyd•robad 0.IWllll Salei Taz Act, 1950 (XII' of 1950), 1. 11. 1961 F•bTllOrJ Ile 868 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1961 The appellant collected sales tax from the purchasers of betel leaves R. Abdul Quader in connection with the sales made by iL But it did not pay the amount . v. collected to the Government. The Government directed the appellant Saki Taz Officer to pay the amount to the Government and it thereupon filed a writ petition in the High Court questioni112 the validity of s. 11(2) of tho Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act. 1950. Tho main contention ot the appellant before the High Court waa that s. 11 (2) of the Act which authorises the Government to recover a tax collected without the authority of law was beyond the competence of the Stale Legislature because a tax collected without the authority of law would not be a tax levied under the )aw and it would therefore Dot be open to the State to collect under the authority of a Jaw enacted under the Entry 54 of List II of the· VII Schedule to the Constitution any such amount as it was not a tax on sale or purchase of good•. The High Court held that s. 11 (2) was good· as an ancillary provision with regard to the collectiqp of sales or purchase tax and therefore incidental to tho power under Entry 54, List II. The High Court also beld that even if s. 11(2) cannot be justified under that entry it could bo justified under Entry 26, List II and in the result the writ petition was dismissed. The present appeal is bY way of special leave granted by this Court. Held: (i) It cannot bo said that the State Legislature was directly legislating for the imposition of sales or purchase tax under Entry 54, List II when it made the provisions of s. 11 (2) for on tho face of tho provisions the amount, though collected bY way of tax was Dot eiigible as tax under tho law. (ii) II Is trno that the heads of legislation in tho varions li•b In tho Seventh Schedule should be interpreted widely so as to tato in all maltero which are ot a character incidental to tho topic mentioned therein. Even so there is a limit to ouch incidents! or ancillary powen. These have to be exercned in aid of the i'nain topic of legi•lation, which in the present case n a tax on sale or purchase ot goods. 'Ilic ambit of ancillary or incidental power> does not go to the eitent of permitting the legislature to provide that though the amount collected, may be wrongly, by way of tax is Dot exigib!e under the Jaw as made UDder the relevant taxing entry, it shall still be paid over to the Goven>o moot
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.