TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1988 (12) TMI 325
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Madhya Pradesh Sthaniya Kshetra Me Mal Ke Pravesh Par Kar Adhiniyam, 1976 (in short, the "Entry Tax Act") and claim exemption from payment of entry tax on whole pulses brought into a local area for sale outside the State, or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce after manufacturing split pulses, besides claiming other ancillary reliefs. The amending Act No. 33 of 1981 was given retrospective effect. 3.. The incidence of taxation is given in section 3 of the Entry Tax Act. Prior to the impugned amendment, clause (v) of the first proviso to section 3(1) read as follows: "(v). in respect of goods specified in Schedule II which after entry into a local area are sold outside the State or in the course of inter-State trade or com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m 14 of Schedule II to the Entry Tax Act are goods declared to be of special importance in inter-State trade or commerce by section 14(vi-a) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Further, section 15(d) of this Act provides that each of the pulses referred to in section 14(vi-a) whether whole or separated, and whether with or without husk, shall be treated as a single commodity for the purposes of levy of tax under every sales tax law of a State. There can, therefore, be no doubt that whole and separated pulses constitute same goods for levy of tax under the State Sales Tax Act. The words 'for the purpose of levy of tax' in our opinion as used in section 15(d) of the Central Sales Tax Act are wide enough to cover the purpose of non-levy of tax or th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roviso (v) to section 3 of the Entry Tax Act bring in that principle for deciding whether pulses brought into a local area have been sold outside the State or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce." It was, therefore, argued that the amending Act could not be given retrospective effect, because the incidence of sales tax was on the buyer and it would not be possible for the seller to recover it from the buyer in respect of past transactions. 4.. We find no substance in the contention. In Hira Lal Rattan Lal v. Sales Tax Officer, Section III, Kanpur [1973] 31 STC 178 (SC); AIR 1973 SC 1034, the Supreme Court upheld the retrospective levy of sales tax and observed that the "contention that the retrospective levy did not afford any ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....State Act on declared goods could not exceed four per cent of the sale or purchase price of such goods, but by the impugned amendments in the Entry Tax Act, tax in excess of four per cent was sought to be levied and recovered and, therefore, the impugned amendments deserved to be struck down. 6.. We find no substance in the contention. As earlier pointed out, the tax levied under the Entry Tax Act is in respect of entry of goods into a local area for the purpose of consumption, use or sale therein and not in respect of sale thereof and therefore, section 14 or 15 of the Central Act cannot be resorted to in attacking the provisions of the Entry Tax Act. In paragraph 10 of the decision of this Court in C.B. and Co. v. D.K Verma 1981 MPLJ 229....