TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Upholds Validity of Sales Tax Act Sections, Clarifies Dealer Classification</h1> <h3>Bechu & Company and others Versus Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Special Circle-I, Kozhikode and others</h3> Bechu & Company and others Versus Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Special Circle-I, Kozhikode and others - [2003] 132 STC 68 (Ker) Issues Involved:1. Validity of sub-sections (2), (2A), and (2B) of section 5 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963.2. Interpretation of the term 'holder' in the context of trade marks and brand names.3. Alleged discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution.Summary:1. Validity of Sub-sections (2), (2A), and (2B) of Section 5:The main challenge in these writ petitions concerns the validity of sub-sections (2), (2A), and (2B) of section 5 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, inserted by the Finance Act, 1998. The petitioners, dealers in commodities like palm oil, argue that these provisions unfairly classify brand name holders/trade mark holders as a separate class for tax levy purposes. The court noted that sub-section (2B) is similar to section 5A and found no specific grounds against it. The court emphasized that the scheme of the Act is to levy tax at a single point, and sub-section (2) deems the sale by brand name/trade mark holders as the first sale, irrespective of the actual first sale. Sub-section (2A) aids in implementing sub-section (2) by exempting other dealers from tax liability if they produce a declaration from the brand name/trade mark holder.2. Interpretation of the Term 'Holder':The petitioners argued that the term 'holder' in sub-sections (2), (2A), and (2B) should be interpreted as holders of registered trade marks/brand names. The court rejected this argument, stating that the term 'holder' includes both registered and unregistered trade mark/brand name holders. The court noted that the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act allows the use of unregistered trade marks/brand names and does not prohibit their use. The court emphasized that interpreting the term 'holder' to mean only registered holders would amount to rewriting the section, which is not permissible.3. Alleged Discrimination Under Article 14:The petitioners contended that the provisions violate Article 14 of the Constitution by treating similarly situated dealers differently. The court held that the classification of dealers into those who sell goods under a trade mark/brand name and those who do not is reasonable and has a rational nexus with the object of the legislation, which is to augment revenue. The court cited several Supreme Court decisions to support the view that the Legislature has wide discretion in selecting persons or objects for taxation and that such classification is permissible if it is reasonable and based on intelligible differentia.Conclusion:The court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the validity of sub-sections (2), (2A), and (2B) of section 5 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The court clarified that it only considered the constitutional validity of these provisions and left other challenges to be decided in appropriate legal proceedings before the statutory authorities.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
