Declared goods tax ceiling applies to total sales and turnover tax burden, not each levy separately.

Declared goods under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 remain subject to the ceiling in section 15(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and article 286(3) of the Constitution. Turnover tax is treated as another form of sales tax, so the 4 per cent limit applies to the aggregate tax burden and not to sales tax and turnover tax separately. The amended levy can operate only if the proviso to section 6B(3), rule 3(2A)(6) and related computation safeguards are applied so that the net tax payable on declared goods does not exceed the prescribed ceiling.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after the amendment of the turnover-tax provision, the levy under section 6B of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 could validly be applied to declared goods only if the aggregate sales tax and turnover tax burden remained within the ceiling of 4 per cent prescribed by section 15(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and article 286(3) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Section 15(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 was treated as a restrictive provision governing the State's power to tax declared goods, and was construed strictly. The Court held that turnover tax is merely another form of sales tax and, therefore, the statutory ceiling of 4 per cent applies to the total tax burden on declared goods, not to sales tax and turnover tax separately in isolation. On that construction, if the amended provisions were applied without the safeguards in the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941 and the proviso to section 6B(3), the levy could become inconsistent with section 15(a) and article 286(3). To preserve validity, the assessment authorities were directed to apply the proviso to section 6B(3), rule 3(2A)(6) and any other relevant computation provisions so that the net tax payable on declared goods does not exceed 4 per cent of the basic or actual price.

Conclusion: The impugned levy was upheld only to the extent that it could be worked out consistently with the 4 per cent ceiling, and the authorities were required to exclude any excess so that the effective tax burden on declared goods did not cross that limit.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded only in part: the statutory provisions were not struck down, but their operation was confined by a mandatory interpretation and computation method ensuring conformity with the constitutional and statutory ceiling on tax on declared goods.

Ratio Decidendi: A State levy on declared goods cannot be upheld if, in its practical operation, the aggregate tax burden exceeds the ceiling imposed by section 15(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956; the charging provisions must be read subject to statutory computation safeguards so that the effective incidence remains within the prescribed limit.

---