Ancillary taxing power upheld for forfeiture of wrongfully collected tax and refund to original payers under sales tax law
A taxing statute may validly require a trader to surrender amounts wrongly collected as tax and provide for refund to the original payers, because entry 54 of List II includes ancillary and incidental power to prevent abuse of the taxing law. On that footing, sections 9-B(3) and 14-A of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 were within the State Legislature's competence and constitutionally valid. The absence of an express prohibition or penalty did not invalidate the forfeiture scheme, as the statutory structure itself implied that wrongful collections ought not to have been made. The challenge to the provisions therefore failed.
Issues: (i) Whether section 9-B(3) and section 14-A of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 were beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature under entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India because they authorised forfeiture of amounts wrongly realised as tax and refund to the persons from whom such amounts were collected; (ii) whether the absence of an express prohibition or penalty at the material time rendered the forfeiture provision invalid.
Issue (i): Whether section 9-B(3) and section 14-A of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 were beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature under entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India because they authorised forfeiture of amounts wrongly realised as tax and refund to the persons from whom such amounts were collected.
Analysis: The controlling principle was that a taxing entry carries not only the power to levy tax but also the ancillary and incidental power to prevent abuse of the taxing statute by dealing with collections wrongly made as tax. The prior Constitution Bench ruling upheld comparable provisions as valid because forfeiture of illegal collections and connected protective measures fall within the scope of legislative power ancillary to the power of taxation under entry 54. The present provisions were even stronger, since they did not stop at forfeiture to the State but also provided for refund to the persons from whom the collections had been taken.
Conclusion: The provisions were within the legislative competence of the State Legislature and were valid.
Issue (ii): Whether the absence of an express prohibition or penalty at the material time rendered the forfeiture provision invalid.
Analysis: The requirement that the trader hand over such collections to the State itself implied that the collections ought not to have been made. The structure and purpose of the provision showed an implied prohibition against wrongful collection, and the validity of the scheme did not depend on the presence of an express penal clause in the manner suggested.
Conclusion: The contention was rejected and the provision was held valid.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the impugned provisions failed, the writ petition stood dismissed, and the State's appeal succeeded on the footing that the disputed sales tax provisions were constitutionally sustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: Provisions in a taxing statute that require a trader to surrender amounts wrongly collected as tax, and provide for their refund to the original payers, are valid as ancillary and incidental to the taxing power under entry 54 of List II, even where the prohibition is implied rather than express.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
