1986 (6) TMI 237

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llenged the constitutionality of the Act in this writ application. According to the petitioner, the provisions of the Act put unreasonable restrictions on his fundamental rights and are confiscatory in nature. It is submitted that the Act does not come within the ambit and scope of entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. The Act is also challenged on the ground that it does not permit the burden of additional tax to be passed on to the customer. The petitioner has accordingly prayed that the Act should be declared ultra vires and unconstitutional. 2.. A counter has been filed on behalf of the State justifying imposition of the additional tax. It is stated the Act does not contravene any of the provisions....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....egislation, unconstitutional and confiscatory and that the liability to pay the tax having been fixed on the dealer, it is unreasonable that he should be obliged to pay the tax irrespective of whether he has earned any profit during the year. Mr. Patnaik, learned standing counsel, submitted that similar provisions under the Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act (14 of 1970) were considered and upheld by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in [1974] 34 STC 73; AIR 1974 SC 2272 (S. Kodar v. State of Kerala). It is further pointed out that the points urged in the present writ application had been urged before the Supreme Court and had been answered in the following manner: "The appellants contend firstly that the Legislature of Tamil N....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... year and it is a tax on the aggregate of the sales effected by the dealer during the year. The decision in Ernakulam Radio Company v. State of Kerala [1966] 18 STC 445 at 449 (Ker), which was affirmed by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Kilikar v. Sales Tax Officer [1968] 21 STC 252 took that view. The same view was taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in A.S. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1969] 24 STC 133. This is the correct view. Entry 54 in List II authorises the State Legislature to impose a tax on the sale or purchase of goods. So, the contention of the appellants that the additional sales tax is not a tax on sales but on the income of the dealer is without any basis. As regards the second contention th....