TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (4) TMI 324
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n and S. Aravindh, Advocates, with him), for the respondents. -------------------------------------------------- The judgment of the Court was delivered by B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.-Leave granted in the S.L.P. Entry 52 in List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, says Sri Narasimha Murthy, should not be confined to an impost, formerly known as "octroi". He submits that since it is a legislative entry, it must be liberally construed and full effect must be given to the words used therein. He says that when entry 52 speaks of a tax on the entry of goods into a local area for consumption, use or sale therein, the words "sale therein" must be given their due and natural meaning and should not be restricted t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icipality as one in the nature of octroi but where the levy is created by the State Legislature and the assessment and collection is also by the State Government, there is no reason to restrict the word "sale" occurring in section 3 of the Karnataka Act to sale of goods intended for use or consumption within the given local area. It is true, says the counsel, that the levy is at the stage of entry of goods into a local area but the levy is not by the local authority. The Karnataka Act, he says, bears no resemblance or similarity to a levy in the nature of octroi imposed by the local authorities and, therefore, it should not be subjected to the limitations applicable to a levy by the local authorities. On the other hand, it is contended b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of this Court. We, therefore, regard this case as requiring further clarification particularly because the point is of some substance and affects municipal finances and the business community in the whole country." It is in pursuance of the said reference that the matter came up before the Constitution Bench which re-affirmed the law laid down in Burmah-Shell [1963] Supp 2 SCR 216; AIR 1963 SC 906. The very same question has again been raised in Parekh Automobiles [1990] 1 SCC 367 but once again the three-Judge Bench affirmed the principle of Burmah-Shell [1963] Supp 2 SCR 216; AIR 1963 SC 906 and Hiralal Thakorlal AIR 1976 SC 1446. Sri Salve submits that at this distance of time the matter should not be allowed to be re-agitated. Whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s "sale therein" in section 3 of the Karnataka Act. At the same time, we find it not possible to agree with the Karnataka High Court insofar as it directed refund of the amount, which may be found to have been paid in excess of the legal liability, to the respondents. Any such direction would amount to unjust enrichment of the respondents who are merely dealers and have passed on the burden to the purchasers/consumers. The dealers themselves have not suffered any loss. They merely passed on the liability. In such cases, this Court has been refusing to refund the tax-See State of Madhya Pradesh v. Vyankatlal [1987] 64 STC 6 (SC); AIR 1985 SC 901 and Amar Nath Om Prakash v. State of Punjab [1986] 62 STC 130; AIR 1985 SC 218. An identical q....