TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (6) TMI 100
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t on 19th Aug., 1983 in respect of the July collections and on 19th Sept., 1983 in respect of the collections made in the month of Aug., 1983. The payment of sales-tax was thus in order as per the Sales-tax Rules of the Kerala Government which permitted the collections made in a month to be remitted to the credit of the Government by the 20th day of subsequent month. The assessee did not claim any deduction of sales-tax for the sales-tax outstanding from its income. However, the ITO brought to tax the outstanding amount in the sales-tax account following the decision of the Supreme Court in Chowringhee Sales Bureau vs. CIT 1973 CTR (SC) 44 : (1973) 87 ITR 542 (SC). 2. The assessee contended before the CIT(A) that it did not claim deducti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y, 1983 was remitted on 19th Sept., 1983 i.e. within the 20th day of the month following the collection and because the assessee closed the accounts on 16th Aug., 1983 that amount appeared to be outstanding in its books. The collections made by the assessee upto 16th Aug., 1983, are to be remitted only before 20th Sept., 1983; and was in fact remitted on 19th Sept., 1983 but because the assessee closed its books of account on 16th Aug., 1983, the said collections for the month of August also appeared as an outstanding. Thus, there was a liability on the part of the assessee to pay the sales-tax and there was time left for the assessee to make such payments. In the meanwhile, the position of the assessee is only that of a trustee and, theref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the first proviso to s. 43B is not retrospective in operation. Thus he supported the order of the CIT(A). 5. In his reply the assessee's representative relied on the decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Jamshedpur Motor Accessories Stores vs. Union of India & Ors. (1991) 91 CTR (Pat) 19, and submitted that in view of the decision of the High Court, the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal and also the decision of the Cochin Bench of the Tribunal need not be adopted. They stand overruled. 6. Thus, we heard rival submissions and perused the record. The assessee has paid the sales-tax collected in the month of July, 1983, on 19th Sept., 1983 within the time allowed by the Rules framed by the State Government. Similarl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctive. On the other hand, the legislature had taken care to see that it applies only from 1st April, 1988. Against the very specific mention of the date of its operation, it was very difficult to say that it was intended to apply retrospectively either by construction or by necessary implication. There was no material to say that the proviso is declaratory. Therefore, the Commissioner(A) was justified in disallowing the assessee's claim". Following the Special Bench decision, we have decided a few cases against the assessee as for example ITA No. 349 (Coch)/86 in the case of Sri C. Lavanyan vs. ITO holding that the disallowance of sales-tax which was paid subsequently to the credit of the Government was rightly made under the provisions ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n as it provides for doing an impossible act. But it can be upheld by holding that an assessee, like the petitioner for the asst. yr. 1984-85 was entitled to have the benefit of the provisos introduced subsequent to 1984-85. Upon contextual interpretation of statutes, the proviso to s. 43B of the Act should be construed as retrospective in its operation and Explanation 2 thereto should be held to be subject to the said proviso. Explanation 2 appended to s. 43B of the Act does not control the proviso thereto. Such a construction will not only be in consonance with the rule of harmonious construction but shall advance the object and purport of insertion of the said proviso by Finance Act, 1987. The petitioner was entitled to claim deduction o....