Concurrent tax liabilities on sugarcane purchases upheld where separate fiscal enactments operate in different fields.

Purchase tax under section 4 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 was treated as an independent levy on sugarcane purchased by sugar factories, even though sugarcane was also subject to levy under section 49 of the Bihar Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1981. The two statutes were read as operating in different fields, so the special-versus-general rule did not exclude concurrent operation absent direct inconsistency. The plea of double taxation was rejected because the same goods may bear separate liabilities under different enactments where the legislature so provides. The challenge based on industrial control, additional excise, and article 301 was also rejected, while rate and penalty issues were left to statutory authorities.

---

---

Issues: Whether purchase tax under section 4 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 was leviable on sugarcane purchased by sugar factories notwithstanding the levy under section 49 of the Bihar Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1981.

Analysis: The two enactments operated in different fields. The Bihar Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1981 was a special regulatory statute dealing with production, supply, purchase and taxation of sugarcane, while the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 was a general sales and purchase tax statute. The levy under the sugarcane enactment and the levy under section 4 of the Finance Act were held to create distinct liabilities. The rule that a special provision prevails over a general one applies only where there is a true conflict and the two enactments cannot stand together. Here, both levies could operate concurrently. The plea of double taxation was rejected because the same commodity or transaction may bear two taxes under different enactments where the legislature has so provided. Section 4 was construed to mean that the reference to non-payment of sales tax is confined to the Bihar Finance Act itself, and the expression "such goods" referred to the purchased sugarcane, not the finished product. The industry-control argument under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, the plea based on the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957, and the challenge under article 301 were also rejected. The demand for a lower rate under section 13 was not examined on merits and was left to be pursued before the statutory authorities, as was the challenge to penalty.

Conclusion: Purchase tax under section 4 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 was payable in addition to the levy under the Bihar Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1981, and the challenge to the assessment failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were rejected, leaving the petitioners to work out any rate or penalty disputes before the appropriate statutory authorities in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where two fiscal enactments impose separate and independently sustainable liabilities on the same commodity, the later or general enactment is not excluded unless there is a direct statutory inconsistency; double taxation is not impermissible merely because the same goods bear more than one levy under different laws.

---