1965 (10) TMI 11 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Supreme Court rules sales tax on indivisible works contracts invalid

KS. Venkataraman And Company (Private) Limited Versus State Of Madras

The Supreme Court held that the provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, taxing indivisible works contracts were ultra vires. The Court ... Whether a suit for the refund of sales tax assessed under a provision of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 (IX of 1939), declared to be ultra vires the powers of the State Legislature would lie? Held that:- Article 96 of the Limitation Act prescribes a period of limitation of 3 years for relief on the ground of mistake when the mistake became known to the plaintiff. When did the plaintiffs come to know of the mistake in the present case ? In the plaint it is alleged that the plaintiffs came to know of the mistake when the decision in Gannon Dunkerley's case 2 was pronounced by the High Court of Madras on April 5, 1954. The respondent in the written statement did not deny that fact. The suit was filed on March 23, 1955, which was within 3 years from the date of the said knowledge and, therefore, it was clearly within time under article 96 of the Limitation Act. In the result, the appeal is allowed Issues Involved:1. Legislative Competence and Constitutionality of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 19392. Maintainability of the Suit for Refund of Sales Tax3. Limitation Period for Filing the SuitIssue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legislative Competence and Constitutionality of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939The primary issue was whether sections 2(h) and 2(i), Explanation (1)(i) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, read with rule 4(3) of the Turnover and Assessment Rules, were ultra vires the legislative competence of the Madras State Legislature. The appellants contended that these provisions, which allowed the State to tax indivisible works contracts, were declared unconstitutional by the High Court of Madras in Gannon Dunkerley and Co. v. State of Madras. The Supreme Court upheld this view, confirming that the provisions were beyond the legislative competence of the State legislature as they attempted to tax transactions that were not sales of goods but indivisible building contracts. The Court emphasized that the term 'sale of goods' in entry 48 of List II in Schedule VII of the Government of India Act, 1935, must be interpreted as having the same meaning as in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. Therefore, the provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act that allowed for the taxation of indivisible works contracts were ultra vires and void.2. Maintainability of the Suit for Refund of Sales TaxThe next issue was whether a suit for the refund of sales tax assessed under the ultra vires provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act was maintainable. The appellants argued that since the provisions were declared ultra vires, the assessments made under those provisions were void, and thus, a suit for refund was maintainable. The respondents contended that section 18A of the Act barred such a suit. The Supreme Court held that an assessment made under an ultra vires provision cannot be considered as made 'under the Act' and thus is not protected by section 18A. The Court clarified that a statutory authority cannot question the vires of the statute under which it operates. Therefore, a suit challenging an assessment made under an ultra vires provision is maintainable in a civil court.3. Limitation Period for Filing the SuitThe final issue was whether the suit was barred by the law of limitation. The City Civil Court had held that the suit was governed by article 62 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes a three-year period for suits for money payable by the defendant to the plaintiff for money received by the defendant for the plaintiff's use. However, the appellants argued that the suit was governed by article 96 of the Limitation Act, which applies to suits for relief on the ground of mistake, with a three-year limitation period starting from the date when the mistake became known to the plaintiff. The Supreme Court agreed with the appellants, stating that the suit was filed within three years from the date when the appellants came to know of the mistake, i.e., the date of the Madras High Court's judgment in Gannon Dunkerley and Co.'s case. Thus, the suit was within the limitation period.ConclusionThe Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, taxing indivisible works contracts were ultra vires. Consequently, the suit for the refund of sales tax assessed under those provisions was maintainable, and the suit was filed within the limitation period. The Court decreed in favor of the appellants, awarding them the refund of the sales tax paid with costs throughout.