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 the office memorandum dated 27 September 2000, requiring lump sum advance sales tax on iron and steel, cement and chemical fertilisers, was valid in the absence of statutory authority and prior notification under the Manipur Sales Tax Act, 1990, and whether the selective levy was arbitrary and violative of equality.
Analysis: The taxing provisions empowered the State Government to amend schedules or alter the mode of levy only by notification in the Official Gazette after prior notice. The impugned memorandum was issued by the Commissioner of Taxes, not by the State Government, and no statutory provision in the Act authorised levy of advance tax by executive instruction. In fiscal matters, tax can be imposed only by authority of law, and taxing statutes must be strictly construed. The selective coverage of only certain goods also disclosed arbitrary classification with no legal basis.
Conclusion: The office memorandum was authority of law, beyond the competence of the Commissioner of Taxes, and constitutionally impermissible; it was liable to be quashed, and the writ petitioner succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: A tax or tax-related levy can be imposed only by statutory authority and in the manner prescribed by the statute; executive instructions cannot create a taxing liability where the Act does not authorise it.