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 of trade tax and additional tax under the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act could together exceed the ceiling of 26% prescribed under Section 3-A, and whether the later deletion of Section 3-E affected the legality of the levy for the relevant assessment years.
Analysis: Liability to tax arose under Section 3, while the rate of trade tax was prescribed under Section 3-A and the additional levy under Section 3-E. The provisions operated in different fields: trade tax and additional tax were separate and distinct imposts. The court held that the ceiling in Section 3-A governed the trade tax rate, but did not curtail the separate statutory levy of additional tax under Section 3-E. The later legislative omission of Section 3-E could not control the legality of the levy for earlier assessment years, and the subsequent amendment relied upon did not displace the plain meaning of the provisions applicable at the relevant time.
Conclusion: The challenge to the levy failed. The questions of law were answered against the assessee and in favour of the revenue, and the revisions were dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute creates separate charging provisions for trade tax and additional tax, the prescribed ceiling for one levy does not limit the other unless the statute expressly so provides.