Purchase-tax levy on inter-State consignment beyond State competence; refund allowed, but interest declined.

Composite reading of the charging and exemption provisions showed that the levy was not confined to purchase of raw materials; its incidence arose only when manufactured goods were transferred, despatched, or consigned outside West Bengal otherwise than by sale in the State. On that construction, the taxable event was consignment or despatch in inter-State trade, placing the levy within Entry 92B of List I and beyond State competence under Entry 54 of List II. The charging, exemption, and validating clauses formed an indivisible scheme and could not be severed. Collections under the invalid provisions were therefore refundable, but interest was declined.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amended purchase-tax provisions and validating clauses in the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 and the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954 were within the legislative competence of the State Legislature, and (ii) whether the applicants were entitled to refund of tax already collected under the impugned provisions.

Issue (i): Whether the amended purchase-tax provisions and validating clauses in the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 and the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954 were within the legislative competence of the State Legislature.

Analysis: The amended scheme was read as a whole, including the charging provisions and the exemption or deduction provisions. On that composite reading, the tax did not operate at the point of purchase of raw materials alone. Its incidence was fastened only when the manufactured goods were transferred, despatched, or consigned outside West Bengal otherwise than by sale in West Bengal. The taxable event was therefore consignment or despatch of goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, which fell within Entry 92B of List I and not within Entry 54 of List II. The Court further held that the charging and exemption provisions formed an indivisible composite scheme, so the offending part could not be severed to save the legislation. The validating clauses also failed because they rested on provisions that themselves lacked legislative competence.

Conclusion: The amended provisions and the validating clauses were held ultra vires and void for want of legislative competence, against the State.

Issue (ii): Whether the applicants were entitled to refund of tax already collected under the impugned provisions.

Analysis: Since both the pre-amendment and post-amendment provisions were held unconstitutional and without authority of law, the collections made under them were unlawful. The Court treated the refund claim as a direct consequence of the declaration of invalidity. The request for interest was not pressed and, in any event, was declined on the facts and statutory setting of these proceedings.

Conclusion: The applicants were held entitled to refund of the tax collected, but not to interest.

Final Conclusion: The tax provisions struck down were beyond the State Legislature's power, the collections under them could not be retained, and the applicants obtained refund relief without interest.

Ratio Decidendi: For determining legislative competence, the charging and exemption provisions of a tax enactment must be read together to identify the true taxable event; if, in substance, the levy is attracted only on consignment or despatch of goods in inter-State trade, it falls within Entry 92B of List I and is beyond State competence under Entry 54 of List II.

---