TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1974 (3) TMI 100
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... follows: "9. Determination of taxable turnover.-In determining the taxable turnover, the amounts specified in the following clauses shall, subject to the conditions specified therein, be deducted from the total turnover of the dealer......... (i) the excise duty, if any, paid by the dealer to the Central Government in respect of the goods sold by him." After the amendment by the notification dated 8th July, 1963, the clause was in these terms: "(i) the excise duty, if any, paid by the dealer to the Government of Kerala or the Central Government in respect of the goods sold by him." By Notification G.O. (MS) 941/65/RD dated 28th December, 1965, published in the Kerala Gazette, Extraordinary No. 136, dated 29th December, 1965, clause (i)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e year. So according to the counsel, even though rule 9(i) has ceased to be in the Rules from 1st January, 1966, such omission can take effect only from the subsequent year commencing from 1st April, 1966. Reliance has been placed for this proposition on the ruling of the Supreme Court in Mathra Parshad and Sons v. State of Punjab[1962] 13 S.T.C. 180 (S.C.). There is the following passage in the head-note to that decision which has correctly summarised the dicta in the case: "as the tax under the Act (the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948) was yearly and was to be paid on the taxable turnover of a dealer, the exemption, whenever it came in, in the year for which the tax was payable, would exempt sales of those goods throughout the ye....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s to be imposed. The Supreme Court decision cannot therefore support the contention that was raised that the notification will become operative only from 1st April, 1966. Isaac, J., followed the decision in Mathra Parshad and Sons v. State of Punjab and Others[1962] 13 S.T.C. 180 (S.C.). in O.P. No. 1692 of 1968 and if we may say so with respect, rightly, in view of the nature of the notification that was considered by the learned judge in the case. 5.. Counsel then invited our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Modi Sugar Mills Ltd.[1961] 12 S.T.C. 182 (S.C.); A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1047. This case too is distinguishable on facts, for, it is clear that the assessee had elected the previous year ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t should be applied for the assessment for the year commencing on that day and any alteration in the law after the 1st of April can have no effect whatever in changing the incidence of liability for the payment of income-tax by an assessee under the Income-tax Act and that principle must be applied to the assessments under the Sales Tax Act as well. It is no doubt true that the principle is well-established that the law as it stood and as enacted by the Finance Act, which invariably come into force effective from the 1st of April of any year of assessment, is that that should be applied in imposing tax on the income of the previous year to the year of assessment. The Supreme Court in the decision in Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. v. State of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icular fiscal year by a Finance Act. This may be illustrated by pointing out that there was no charge on the 1938-39 income either of the appellant or his daughters, nor assessment of such income, until the passing of the Indian Finance Act of 1939, which imposed the tax for 1939-40 on the 1938-39 income and authorised the present assessment. By sub-section (1) of section 6 of the Indian Finance Act, 1939, income-tax for the year beginning on the 1st April, 1939, is directed to be charged at the rates specified in Part I of Schedule II, and rates of super-tax are also provided for, and by sub-section (3) it is provided that 'for the purpose of this section and of Schedule II, the expression "total income" means total income as determined fo....