Statutory tax-deduction obligations beyond State competence cannot be revived by rule amendments without valid curing legislation.

A statutory tax-deduction obligation declared ultra vires could not be revived by an amended rule or consequential recovery provision without valid validating legislation, so the Revenue's demands under the Kerala General Sales Tax framework failed on the core levy and deduction issues. The Court treated the amended Rule 22A and amended Section 7(7C) as insufficient to sustain tax deduction at source where the substantive obligation had been struck down to the extent it covered turnover beyond State competence. However, additions based on penalty orders and alleged suppression were reopened because the assessing authority had not independently examined the books, registration records and supporting material, requiring fresh verification.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether forfeiture of tax under Section 46A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 could be sustained in view of the Full Bench declaration upholding the earlier view on Section 7(7B) of the Act. (ii) Whether, after the amendment to Rule 22A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963, the obligation to deduct tax at source in works contracts continued notwithstanding exclusion of the inter-State transfer component. (iii) Whether the amended Section 7(7C) created an obligation to deduct tax at source in the manner contended by the Revenue. (iv) Whether additions made on the basis of penalty orders and alleged suppression could be deleted without independent examination of the books and supporting material.

Issue (i): Whether forfeiture of tax under Section 46A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 could be sustained in view of the Full Bench declaration upholding the earlier view on Section 7(7B) of the Act.

Analysis: The earlier constitutional declaration holding Section 7(7B) and the corresponding rule ultra vires was treated as removing the obligation to deduct tax at source to the extent the levy embraced turnover beyond the State's jurisdiction. The later amendment to the rule was not regarded as sufficient to revive the deleted statutory obligation in the absence of a validating provision or a fresh machinery provision curing the infirmity identified by the constitutional court. A rule could not sustain a recovery mechanism when the substantive obligation itself had been struck down.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether, after the amendment to Rule 22A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963, the obligation to deduct tax at source in works contracts continued notwithstanding exclusion of the inter-State transfer component.

Analysis: The amended proviso to Rule 22A was held not to cure the vice in the parent provision. Once the substantive statutory provision had been declared ultra vires to the extent it authorised collection on turnover outside the State's competence, the amended rule could not by itself create a surviving obligation to deduct tax at source. Section 7(10) was also held to be consequential only and incapable of operating independently where no valid deduction obligation existed.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the amended Section 7(7C) created an obligation to deduct tax at source in the manner contended by the Revenue.

Analysis: The amendment to Section 7(7C), as considered by the Court, was not treated as imposing the deduction obligation asserted by the Revenue. On the reasoning adopted, the provision did not support the levy in the form advanced against the assessee.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether additions made on the basis of penalty orders and alleged suppression could be deleted without independent examination of the books and supporting material.

Analysis: The Tribunal's deletion of the additions was set aside because the Assessing Officer had not independently examined the basis for the turnover additions and alleged suppression. The finality of the penalty orders did not dispense with a separate enquiry into the nature of the goods, the books of account, the registration records and other supporting materials. The matter required fresh verification at the assessment stage.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the Revenue to the extent of remand for fresh consideration by the Assessing Officer.

Final Conclusion: The revisions succeeded only in part: the assessee prevailed on the core levy and deduction issues, while the turnover-addition issue was reopened for fresh assessment.

Ratio Decidendi: Once a statutory deduction obligation is declared ultra vires to the extent it authorises collection beyond the State's competence, a subordinate rule or consequential recovery provision cannot revive that obligation without a valid validating or curing enactment.

---