Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether rule 16(2) of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules validly authorised levy of penalty for non-payment of tax demanded under the Central Sales Tax Act, and whether the penalty imposed under that rule was without jurisdiction.
Analysis: Section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 enables State sales tax authorities to assess, collect and enforce payment of tax and penalty payable under the Act, but the Act itself contains no specific provision creating a penalty for default in payment of tax demanded. Section 13 empowers rule-making, yet the rule-making power must remain within the confines of the Act and cannot be used to create a new penal liability unless the statute expressly or by necessary implication authorises it. The Court held that neither section 9 nor section 13 contains any clear authority for a rule imposing penalty for non-payment of demanded tax, and therefore rule 16(2), to that extent, travelled beyond the delegated power.
Conclusion: Rule 16(2) of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules was held to be ultra vires the Act insofar as it authorised penalty for non-payment of tax demanded, and the penalty imposed on that basis was without jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: A rule-making authority cannot create a penal liability in the absence of express statutory authority or necessary implication from the parent Act, especially in a taxing statute which must be strictly construed.