Charging provision cannot be expanded by explanation to create taxable turnover where none is determinable under the statute.

Explanation V to Section 2(1)(aa) of the Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act, 1970 was treated as an impermissible enlargement of the charging provision because additional sales tax is linked to taxable turnover, while a dealer opting under Section 7-C of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act pays tax on the total value of the works contract rather than on a determined taxable turnover. The court relied on the earlier Division Bench view that, without a determinable taxable turnover under the principal Act, additional sales tax could not be levied by deeming the contract value to be taxable turnover. The Explanation was therefore held ultra vires and invalid, and the challenge to the levy succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether Explanation V to Section 2(1)(aa) of the Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act, 1970, which deems the total value of works contracts executed by a dealer opting for payment under Section 7-C of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 as taxable turnover, is valid and within the legislative competence of the State.

Analysis: The levy of additional sales tax under the Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act, 1970 is linked to the taxable turnover of the dealer. In the case of a dealer who opts to pay tax under Section 7-C of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, the amount paid is computed on the total value of the works contract and not on a determined taxable turnover. The earlier Division Bench decision had already held that, in the absence of determination of taxable turnover under the principal Act, additional sales tax could not be levied by treating the contract value as taxable turnover. The impugned Explanation was introduced only to overcome that decision, but an Explanation cannot widen the scope of the charging provision or enlarge the charge itself. Such an expansion of the concept of taxable turnover was held to be beyond legislative competence and contrary to the scheme of the Act.

Conclusion: Explanation V was held to be ultra vires and invalid. The challenge to the levy succeeded, and the assessee's stand was accepted.

Final Conclusion: The writ appeal failed, and the order striking down Explanation V and granting relief to the assessee stood confirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: An Explanation cannot be used to enlarge a charging provision or create a taxable turnover where none is determinable under the principal statute; if the statutory scheme does not authorise the levy, the resulting charge is beyond legislative competence.

---