LexTHE ORIENT PAPER MILLS LTD. versus THE STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
... 1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 549 on August 3, 1960. There was, in our opinion, a clear r96r violation of the requirement of cl. 10, which embodies 5 h G . d . the principles of natural justice. The cancellation "' av'''" 1' orders are, therefore, bad and must be quashed. We Deputy Chief con- allow the writ petitions and order accordingly. Thc1,,11er of Imports petitioner is entitled to its costs; there will be one .:~ Exports hearing fee. Pet it ions allowed . THE ORIENT PAPER MILLS LTD. v. THE STATE O:F ORISSA AND OTHERS (And Connected Appeal) (S. K. DAS, J. L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J. c. SHAH and T. L. VENKATARAMA AYYAR,JJ.) Sales Tax--Tax imposed on sales outside the State-Refund, if claimable by dealer or purchaser-Asscssee's fundamental right- Reasonoble restriction-Orissa Sales Tax Act, r947 (XIV of r947), ss. 98, ct. (3), r4-0rissa Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, r958 (28 of 1958), s. r4.1-Constitntion of India, Art. r9(r)(j). The appellants who were registered as dealers under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, used to collect sales tax from the purchasers on all sales effected by them including sales to dea- lers in other states. They were assessed to and paid tax on their turnover which included sales outside the State of Orissa, but after the decision of this Court in State of Bombay v. The United i'>fotors (India) Ltd., [1953] S.C.R. 1069, they applied under s. 14 of the Act for refund of tax paid on the ground that sales outside the State were not taxable under cl. (r)(a) of Art. 286 of the Constitution read with the Explanation. Refund was refused by the Sales Tax Authorities and the Board of Revenue. In petitions moved by the appellants foe writs of certiorari anrl 1nandamus against the orders of the Boa;d of Revenue the High Court ordered refund of tax paid for certain periods and refused it in regard to other periods. The Orissa Sales Tax Act \Vas, ho\.\·ever, amended in 1958 with retrospec- tive effect incorporating s. 14-A which provided that refund could be claimed only by the person from whom the dealer had realised the amount by way of sales-tax or otherwise. S. K. Das J. Ig6I March 24. 550 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962) r96r Held, that under s. 14-A of the Orissa Sales Tax (Amend- ment) Act, 1958, refund of tax which the dealer was not liable The Omni to pay could be claimed by the person from whom the dealer Paper Milts Ltd. had actually realised it whether as sales tax or otherwise, and v. not by the dealer. The State 01 The legislature was competent to legislate for granting Orissa ~ Others refund of sales tax in1properly collected; there is no reason to exclude the power to declare that refund shall be claimable only by the person from whom the dealer has realised the amount as sales-tax or otherwise. Shah ]. Under s. 9B, cl. 3 of the Act, if the amount realised by the assessee exceeded the amount payable as tax such amount must be deposited in the Government treasury, and the assessee hav- ing no beneficial interest in such amount the enactment that the amount shall be claimable only by the persons who paid the amounts to the dealers as sales-tax is a reasonable restriction imposed on the right of the assessee to obtain refund in the interest of the general public, and does not infringe the provi- sions of Art. r9(r)(f) of the Constitution. If the assessees dis- charge their statutory obligation to deposit the amount collect- ed by them as sale tax in the Government treasury they cannot be exposed to any claim for refund by the persons from whom the tax is collected, even though such persons were in thP- first instance not liable to pay the tax. Civ1L APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 273 to 277 of 1960. Appeals by special leave granted by the Supreme Court by its order dated December 15, 1958, from the judgment and order dated February 4, 1957, of the High Court of Orissa in 0. J. 0. Nos. 184 to 188 of 1955. H. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor-General of India and B. P. Maheshwari, for appellants (In 0. As. Nos. 273 and 274 of 1960) and respondents (In 0. As. Nos. 275-277 of 1960). C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, B. R. L. Iyengar and T. 111. Sen, for respondents (In 0. As. Nos. 273 and 274 of 1960) and appellants (In 0. As. Nos. 275-277 of 1960). llJ61. March 24. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH, J.-The Orient Paper Mills Ltd.,-hcreinafter called the assessee
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.