Mutatis mutandis incorporation keeps the principal sales tax scheme and exemptions governing the additional levy.

Where a later fiscal enactment applies the earlier Act mutatis mutandis, the two statutes must be read together and the earlier charging scheme continues unless expressly altered. The additional sales tax under the Orissa Additional Sales Tax Act was therefore not a free-standing multi-point levy; it had to operate consistently with the single-point scheme of the principal Act. The restriction against taxation at more than one point, the dealer-liability structure, and the exemption provisions of the principal Act governed the additional levy, so exempt, declared, and otherwise non-taxable turnover could not be taxed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the additional sales tax under the Orissa Additional Sales Tax Act, 1975 as amended in 1979 was a single point levy or a multi-point levy. (ii) Whether the provisions of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, particularly the restriction against taxation at more than one point and the exemption provisions, applied to the additional tax by force of the words mutatis mutandis in section 3(2) of the Orissa Additional Sales Tax Act, 1975.

Issue (i): Whether the additional sales tax under the Orissa Additional Sales Tax Act, 1975 as amended in 1979 was a single point levy or a multi-point levy.

Analysis: The amended levy was framed as an additional charge on dealers already liable under the principal sales tax law and was expressed as a rate on gross turnover. The amendment did not expressly exclude the scheme of the principal Act. Read as a whole, and in light of the legislative background and the object of the amendment, the later Act had to be construed with the principal Act. The use of the word additional and the absence of express words creating a multi-point levy indicated that the Legislature did not intend a complete departure from the existing single point scheme.

Conclusion: The levy was not intended to be a multi-point levy in the unrestricted sense and had to operate consistently with the single point scheme of the principal Act.

Issue (ii): Whether the provisions of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, particularly the restriction against taxation at more than one point and the exemption provisions, applied to the additional tax by force of the words mutatis mutandis in section 3(2) of the Orissa Additional Sales Tax Act, 1975.

Analysis: Section 3(2) incorporated the principal Act into the additional tax scheme with the necessary changes in detail, subject to express provisions in the later Act. It was therefore incorrect to treat the two enactments as wholly independent. The restriction in section 8 of the principal Act, the dealer liability structure, and the exemption provisions could not be ignored. Taxable turnover under the principal Act alone could be brought within the additional levy, and exempt turnover, declared goods, and turnover not otherwise taxable under the principal Act were outside the additional tax. A contrary construction would create anomalies and defeat the legislative scheme.

Conclusion: The principal Act applied to the additional tax subject to express modifications, and the restrictions and exemptions under the principal Act governed the levy.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the additional tax could be levied only within the limits of the principal Act as read with the later Act, with exempt or non-taxable turnover excluded from the levy.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a later fiscal enactment provides that the earlier Act shall apply mutatis mutandis, the two statutes must be read together and the earlier Act's charging scheme, including its restriction against multiple-point taxation and its exemptions, continues to govern except to the extent expressly altered by the later Act.

---