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 levy under Section 6A of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 on the retail sale price or MRP of goods sold for the first time in the State could be sustained, and whether the provision was materially distinguishable from Section 4A of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994.
Analysis: The provision in question was compared with Section 4A of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 and found to be in substance and material particulars pari materia. The difference that one provision referred to goods specified in Schedule F while the other referred to goods notified by the State Government was treated as insignificant. In the earlier decision upheld by the Supreme Court, tax on first-point sale could not be levied with reference to a published MRP when the wholesaler did not charge and was not chargeable with that price from the retailer. That reasoning was held to apply fully to the Haryana provision.
Conclusion: The levy of tax on the basis of published MRP under Section 6A was not sustainable as against the wholesaler's sale to the retailer, and the challenge succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory levy on first-point sale is materially pari materia to a provision already disapproved on the ground that MRP is neither charged nor chargeable at that stage, tax cannot be measured by the published MRP at the wholesaler-to-retailer sale.