Forfeiture of wrongly collected tax amounts upheld as a reasonable restriction against abuse and unjust enrichment.

Section 12A(4) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act was construed to cover amounts collected by a registered dealer as tax on sales not taxable under the Act, including outside-State sales, because the provision targets any collection by way of tax where no tax is payable and operates independently of the charging provisions. The Court also upheld the forfeiture mechanism as a valid restriction under Article 19(5), holding that it prevents abuse of the taxing law, consumer exploitation, and unjust retention of wrongly collected sums. Forfeiture was treated as a penalty that the dealer could avoid by refunding the amount to the purchaser.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether section 12A(4) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946 applied to amounts collected by a registered dealer by way of tax on sales not taxable under the Act, including outside-State sales. (ii) Whether section 12A(4), in providing for forfeiture of such amounts, was unconstitutional as violative of Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether section 12A(4) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946 applied to amounts collected by a registered dealer by way of tax on sales not taxable under the Act, including outside-State sales.

Analysis: The language of section 12A was held to be clear and comprehensive. Sub-sections (1), (2) and (4) were construed as aimed at preventing a dealer from collecting any amount by way of tax where no tax was payable, and section 12A(4) was treated as covering not only collections in breach of the express prohibitions but also collections by a registered dealer in excess of the amount payable under the Act. The fact that the sales were outside-State sales did not take the collections outside the scope of the provision. Section 30 was held not to exclude the operation of section 12A, because section 12A regulated collections of money by way of tax and did not itself levy tax on the sales.

Conclusion: Section 12A(4) was held to apply to the amounts collected by the petitioners on outside-State sales.

Issue (ii): Whether section 12A(4), in providing for forfeiture of such amounts, was unconstitutional as violative of Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The Court held that amounts collected by a registered dealer by way of tax belong to the dealer, so Article 19(1)(f) was attracted. The real question was whether the forfeiture provision imposed reasonable restrictions in the interests of the general public under Article 19(5). Applying the test of reasonableness, the Court held that section 12A(4) was enacted to prevent abuse of the taxing statute, to curb exploitation of consumers, and to stop illegal collections under the cloak of tax. The forfeiture was treated as a penalty directed against unjust retention of money collected where no tax was payable, and the dealer could avoid forfeiture by refunding the amount to the purchaser. The Court declined to follow the contrary Mysore view and distinguished the Bombay Dyeing line of authority.

Conclusion: Section 12A(4) was held to be valid and not violative of Article 19(1)(f).

Final Conclusion: The notice issued under section 12A(4) was sustained and no mandamus or prohibition was warranted. The petition failed on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory forfeiture of tax amounts collected by a dealer though no tax is payable is valid if it is a reasonable restriction in the interests of the general public, designed to prevent abuse of the taxing law and unjust enrichment.

---