1981 (7) TMI 226

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...."the Act") at the instance of the revenue and the following question has been referred for our opinion:   "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Sales Tax Tribunal, Orissa, was justified to hold that the assessee was not liable to pay sales tax with effect from 1st July, 1969, to 31st October, 1969?"   2. The assessee was an unregistered dealer carrying on....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pheld. One of the contentions of the assessee was that the amending Act of 1968 came into force with effect from 1st July, 1969, by which the non-taxable limit was raised from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 25,000 of the gross turnover. It was contended that as the gross turnover of the assessee did not exceed Rs. 25,000 on 1st July, 1969, his liability to pay tax ceased with effect from the date the amending ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ecision reached in the reported case required reconsideration. According to the counsel for the assessee, in the earlier amending Act of 1958, section 24 provides a saving clause in respect of liability whereas in the amending Act 1968, section 16 made provision for removal of doubts. In section 16, according to the assessee's counsel, the liability that was saved was one that arose under section ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ation in the case of a continuing dealer prior to the Act and a dealer who would get into the business after the amending Act of 1968. We do not think that there is any scope for the contention of discrimination. A continuing dealer and a new dealer do not belong to the same class, and if legislation is made making the continuing dealer subject to one type of dealer (sic) and the new dealer wou....