TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (12) TMI 258
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of 1991 are registered dealers under both these Acts. The applicants in Cases Nos. RN436 of 1990, RN-57 of 1991 and RN-66 of 1991 are registered dealers under the Act of 1941. The applicants in Case No. RN-22 of 1991 are registered dealers under the Act of 1954. 3.. The applicants have paid various amounts of purchase tax under section 4(6)(ii) of the Act of 1941 and/or section 4(2)(i) of the Act of 1954 since the enactment of these provisions by the West Bengal Act 23 of 1977 with effect from October 10, 1977. These provisions in these two Acts were subsequently amended by the West Bengal Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1990 and validation was made of all taxes on purchases levied or collected or purported to have been levied or collected under section 4(6)(ii) of the Act of 1941 and section 4(2)(i) of the Act of 1954. The validation was made by inserting sub-sections (2A) and (2B) in section 26A of the Act of 1941 and enacting section 28 in the Act of 1954. These validating provisions came into effect from February 26, 1990. By the West Bengal Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1990 (West Bengal Act 6 of 1990), clause (iiia) was inserted in sub-section (7) of section 5 of the Act ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the West Bengal Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1990, were declared ultra vires the Constitution by this Tribunal on the ground that the State Legislature had no competence to enact the same. These provisions were struck down by this Tribunal in the case of Rasoi Ltd. [1991] 80 STC 356. The relevant rules were also quashed as ultra vires. The decision of this Tribunal in that case was that the right to get the refund would accrue on and from the date of that judgment of this Tribunal on September 11, 1990. By that judgment the respondents were directed to refund to the applicants in the case of Rasoi Ltd. [1991] 80 STC 356 the amounts of impugned tax and interest thereon, if any, levied and collected from those applicants under the old as well as the new sections 4(6)(ii) of the Act of 1941 and 4(2)(i) of the Act of 1954. The respondents in those cases were directed to make such refunds within six months from September 11, 1990, after verifying the correctness of the particulars of refundable amounts. 5.. On the basis of this judgment in the case of Rasoi Ltd. [1991] 80 STC 356 the present eleven cases have been filed under section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase of Rasoi Ltd. [1991] 80 STC 356. The contention of the applicants in these three cases is that special leave has been granted by the Honourable Supreme Court on February 11, 1991 and that stay order has been granted by the Supreme Court only on undertaking by the Government of West Bengal to pay interest at the rate of 18 per cent, if the Government failed at the time of disposal of the appeals. It is alleged that the stay order has been passed by the Honourable Supreme Court so that the Government could levy purchase tax till the disposal of the special leave petitions fixed tentatively for hearing in the month of July, 1991. It is alleged that the applicants in these three cases have come to learn that in some cases such as Messrs. Dey's Medical Stores and others, the Government of West Bengal has not furnished an undertaking to pay interest at the rate of 18 per cent and the Honourable Supreme Court has not allowed stay petitions in those cases and has only admitted the special leave petitions. The applicants in these three cases (RN-4 of 1991, RN-5 of 1991 and RN-31 of 1991) contend that the stay order has been granted only in the matter of Rasoi Ltd. on furnishing an under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sions for exemptions for finding out the pith and substance of the legislation, as done by this Tribunal in the case of Rasoi Limited [1991] 80 STC 356. The respondents have referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of A.V. Fernandez v. State of Kerala [1957] 8 STC 561, Devi Dass Gopal Krishnan v. State of Punjab [1967] 20 STC 430; AIR 1967 SC 1895 and Sri Venkateswara Rice, Ginning and Groundnut Oil Mill Contractors Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1971] 28 STC 599, for contending that incurring of charge is different from enforceability and computation. According to the respondents, this distinction between chargeability and quantification of tax was lost sight of by this Tribunal by holding that the pith and substance rule would be meaningless, if the charging provision was construed in isolation from the provision for exemption. The case of the respondents is that by promulgating the West Bengal Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1977, the State of West Bengal amended the Act of 1941 and the Act of 1954 with effect from October 10, 1977, incorporating therein, amongst others, the provisions for levy of tax on purchase of goods by registered dealer for use in the ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al growth and regular flow of manufactured goods from West Bengal to the markets outside West Bengal and to enable them to stand competition in the markets outside West Bengal, the restrictions and conditions for purchase of raw materials and packing materials referred to in subclauses (i) and (ii) in section 5(1)(bb) of the Act of 1941 and section 23A of the Act of 1954 were relaxed and it was made permissible by sub-section (4) of section 5A of the Act of 1941, inserted by the West Bengal Taxation Laws (Third Amendment) Act, 1977, for the registered dealers to make purchases of raw materials and packing materials on the strength of declaration forms with effect from October 10, 1977, even though the manufactured goods were not sold by them in West Bengal against payment of tax on such purchases at the rate of 4 per cent (up to March 31, 1978), 2 per cent (up to March 31, 1983) and 3 per cent thereafter under section 4(6)(ii) of the Act of 1941 or section 4(2)(i) of the Act of 1954, in lieu of heavy amount of penalty in terms of section 5A of the Act of 1941 or section 4AAAA of the Act of 1954. Before coming into force of this permissive legislation in section 5A(4) of the Act of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Haryana Act" for the sake of convenience) and the provisions contained in section 13AA of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter called "the Bombay Act" for the sake of brevity), pertaining to the levy of purchase tax therein, which have been declared ultra vires the Constitution of India and invalid by the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Goodyear India Ltd. [1990] 76 STC 71, are basically different from the point of view of the taxable event under section 4(6)(ii) of the Act of 1941 and section 4(2)(i) of the Act of 1954. Affidavit-in-reply has been filed for the applicants in each of these cases. 9.. The affidavit-in-opposition filed for the respondents is in the nature of an application for reconsideration of the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Rasoi Limited [1991] 80 STC 356. Two of my learned brothers are parties to the judgment delivered in these cases. Though it is not proper to have a judgment of this Tribunal reconsidered by this Tribunal, particularly when special leave petitions against the judgment have been admitted and are pending in the Supreme Court, I am to discuss the matters ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lause (v), of goods liable to tax under clause (ii) of sub-section (6) of section 4 for use directly in the manufacture of goods in West Bengal or in the packing in West Bengal of goods so manufactured for sale in West Bengal: Provided that where specified purchase price of goods, other than that in respect of purchases referred to in clause (ii) or clause (v), cannot be fully identified by a dealer, the specified purchase price in respect of purchases referred to in this clause shall be determined in such manner as may be prescribed;" 12.. Some consequential amendments for determination of specified purchase prices under the proviso to clause (iiia) of sub-section (7) of section 5 of the Act of 1941 were made by the West Bengal Act 6 of 1990 by omitting with effect from October 10, 1977, sub-section (8) and subsection (9) of section 5 of the Act of 1941 and clause (ddd) to section 26(2) and inserting with effect from October 10, 1977, clause (d-1) to sub-section (2) to section 26 of the Act of 1941. Validating provisions were made by the West Bengal Act 6 of 1990 by inserting sub-sections (2A) and (2B) after subsection (2) to section 26A of the Act of 1941 and inserting clau....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly in the manufacture of notified commodity in West Bengal or packing in West Bengal of such notified commodity for sale in West Bengal: Provided that where the specified purchase price of goods, other than that in respect of purchases referred to in clause (ii) or clause (iii), cannot be fully identified by a dealer, the specified purchase price in respect of purchases referred to in this clause, shall be determined in such manner as may be prescribed;" 15.. Consequential to those amendments, some more amendments were effected for determination of taxable specified purchase price by omitting with effect from October 10, 1977, sub-sections (6) and (7) of section 4 of the Act of 1954, substituting a new clause (f) to section 21(2) and inserting clause (g) to section 21(2) of the Act of 1954 with effect from October 10, 1977. Some validating provisions were made by inserting section 28 in the Act of 1954 so that all taxes or purchases levied or collected or purported to have been levied or collected and recoveries made thereof or assessment or reassessment made in respect thereof could not be challenged. As a corollary to these amendments, sub-rule (1) to rule 20A of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arding imposition of purchase tax in the Act of 1941 and the Act of 1954, as amended in 1990, are different from the provisions of section 9 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973, as amended by the Haryana General Sales Tax (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1983, as well as section 13AA of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, which were considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Goodyear India Ltd. [1990] 76 STC 71 and which formed the basis of the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Rasoi Limited [1991] 80 STC 356. The contention is that as the provisions in the Haryana and Bombay Acts are different, there was legislative competence of the State of West Bengal to levy purchase tax under entry 54 in List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. It was held by this Tribunal in the case of Rasoi Limited [1991] 80 STC 356 that the impugned provisions as they stood before 1990 were not different from the new provisions brought in by the Amending Act in 1990 or from the provisions of the Haryana and Maharashtra Acts which were considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Goodyear India Ltd. [1990] 76 STC 71. I am bound by this judgment in the case of Rasoi Limited [1991]....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....895 and Sri Venkateswara Rice, Ginning and Groundnut Oil Mill Contractors Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1971] 28 STC 599 (SC) and has contended that the provisions for exemption in section 5(7)(iiia) and section 4(4)(iia) should not be considered along with the amended section 4(6)(ii) of the Act of 1941 and section 4(2)(i) of the Act of 1954. His contention is that when there is a clear distinction between chargeability and quantification of tax, the provisions for exemption or deduction should not be considered along with the charging provisions so as to come to the conclusion that the purchase tax is really a tax on despatches or consignments of finished products, falling within entry 92B of List I in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Mr. D. Majumdar has drawn our attention to the observations of Hegde, J., referred to in the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Rasoi Limited [1991] 80 STC 356 and has contended that these observations in the case of J.K. Steel Limited v. Union of India AIR 1970 SC 1173 were not from the majority judgment delivered in that case of J.K. Steel Limited AIR 1970 SC 1173. The observations in the case of J.K. Steel Limited AIR 1970 SC 117....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....chase price of copra from his gross turnover and not the purchase price of copra which could be allocated to his sale of oil inside the State of Travancore-Cochin. The sales tax authorities contended that the appellant was not entitled to take into computation at all his sales of oil outside the State and was not entitled to deduct from his gross turnover the purchase price of copra allocated to the oil sold to the persons outside the State. This contention of the sales tax authorities was upheld by the Supreme Court in view of the non-obstante provision in section 26 of the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act, 1952, to the effect, "notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, a tax on the sale or purchase of goods shall not be imposed under this Act where such sale or purchase takes place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce." It is against this background that the Supreme Court laid down the difference between exemption of tax and non-liability to tax. 20.. In the case of Devi Dass Gopal Krishnan v. State of Punjab [1967] 20 STC 430 (SC); AIR 1967 SC 1895, one of the controversies was whether the non-quantification of liability would destroy the liability unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the State to impose the taxes under entry 54 in List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Section 4(6) of the Act of 1941 opens with the expression "Every dealer, who has become liable to pay tax under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) or subsection (4) of this section or sub-section (3) of section 8". Section 4(2) of the Act of 1954 opens with the expression "A dealer liable to pay tax under subsection (1)". The liability to pay purchase tax has thus been fastened on every dealer, who has become liable to pay tax and not who has paid tax or has not paid tax. A dealer cannot deposit such purchase tax, unless it is calculated on the transfer of goods outside West Bengal in relation to total sales and total purchase on issue of declaration forms. The provisions for exemptions and deductions are to be looked into for making the calculation regarding the transfer of goods to places outside West Bengal in relation to total sales and total purchase on issue of declaration forms. The provisions for exemption/deduction are thus to be considered along with the charging sections for finding out the pith and substance behind the chargeability of the so-called purchase tax. In oth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... except that the first proviso to section 4(2)(aa) of that Act excluding the despatches for sale made at recognised tea auction centres was deleted. One of the questions involved in that case was legislative competence of the State to make the levy in respect of tea estates in this manner. The Supreme Court disposed of this question by making the following observation in paragraph 14 of the judgment delivered in that case: "If the impugned legislation were to be regarded as a levy in respect of tea estates, it would be referable to entry 49 in List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution which speaks of 'taxes on lands and buildings'. But if the legislation is in substance legislation in respect of despatches of tea, legislative authority must be found for it with reference to some other entry. We have not been shown any entry in List II or in List III of the Seventh Schedule which would be pertinent. It may be noted that the Parliament had made a declaration in section 2 of the Tea Act, 1953, that it was expedient in the public interest that the Union should take under its control the tea industry. Under the Tea Act, Parliament has assumed control of the tea industry ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oods in the State with the aid of those raw materials. Thereafter he sold the manufactured goods to dealers who, in turn, exported those goods out of India. On these facts the assessee claimed that he was not liable to pay the purchase tax on the raw materials imposed under section 9(1) of the Haryana Act. This claim had been rejected by the taxing authorities and the High Court. Thereafter, the Supreme Court was moved. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Goodyear India Ltd. [1990] 76 STC 71 was that the tax imposed under section 9(1)(b) of that Haryana Act, as amended by the Haryana General Sales Tax (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1983, was a tax on despatch outside the State and outside the legislative competence of the State in view of entry 92B in List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. This decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Goodyear India Ltd. [1990] 76 STC 71 was distinguished in the case of Murli Manohar & Co. [1991] 80 STC 79 (SC) on the ground that what was declared unconstitutional in the Goodyear case [1990] 76 STC 71 (SC) was only the levy of a tax where raw materials were purchased and used inside the State for the manufacture of fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....geable to tax either under section 9(1) or section 6 or section 24(3) of the Haryana Act. On the basis of this decision in the case of Murli Manohar Co. [1991] 80 STC 79 (SC) some of the provisions relating to purchase tax in West Bengal cannot be held to be valid. There is no provision in section 4(6)(ii) read with section 5(7)(iiia) of the Act of 1941 or section 4(2)(i) read with section 4(4)(iia) of the Act of 1954 that there could be a tax on purchase of raw materials if the goods manufactured therefrom are disposed of in the State of West Bengal itself otherwise than by way of sale. It is to be stated in this connection that after this decision in the case of Murli Manohar & Co. [1991] 80 STC 79 (SC), on October 25, 1990, there is another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mukerian Papers Limited v. State of Punjab [1991] 81 STC 152 (SC) on February 13, 1991, similar to the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in the Goodyear case [1990] 76 STC 71. The case of Mukerian Papers Limited [1991] 81 STC 152 (SC) related to imposition of purchase tax on raw materials when goods manufactured therefrom were sent outside the State of Punjab otherwise than by way of sale in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the purposes for which the goods were purchased on the basis of declarations furnished by such registered dealers. 27.. The next contention of Mr. D. Majumdar, the learned State Representative, is that section 4(6)(ii) of the Act of 1941 and section 4(2)(i) of the Act of 1954, as amended by the West Bengal Act 6 of 1990, are to be held valid, when disposal of the purchased goods, whether by way of inter-State sales or sales in the course of export out of the territory of India, is no longer in these charging sections, as amended in 1990. It is contended that these sections, as amended in 1990, make a dealer purchasing goods against declarations under section 5(1)(bb) of the Act of 1941 or the proviso to section 23A of the Act of 1954, liable to pay purchase tax, even when the goods purchased by them against such declarations are stored for subsequent use or destroyed by fire or natural calamity. As for this contention, it is to be stated that if the unamended section 4(6)(ii) of the Act of 1941 and section 4(2)(i) of the Act of 1954 are scrutinised, it can be seen that there are two conditions which must be fulfilled before the event of sale inside the State of West Bengal or d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o Acts. This formula was T -----x P, where transfer of the manufactured goods outside the State of West (T+S) Bengal was the principal criterion. After the amendments in 1990, rules 16F(1) and 20A(1) in the Rules of 1941 and Rules of 1954, respectively, were amended retrospectively from October 10, 1977 by introducing a new P x S formula -----, where "P" denoted purchase through declaration forms, "S" M denoted sale effected in West Bengal and "M" denoted total manufacture of goods by the dealer. The value of the manufactured goods was to be taken as the saleable value under this newly introduced formula. The contention of Mr. S. Sen, the learned advocate for the applicants, is that the applicants have deposited purchase tax under the relevant sections and rules existing previously for imposition of purchase tax which do not now exist and that new set of rules and sections have been introduced in place of the old ones with retrospective effect, with separate formula for determination of purchase tax and that, on the basis of this separate formula, having retrospective effect from October 10, 1977, the amount of purchase tax has to be assessed anew by the assessing autho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the permissive legislation in section 5A(4) of the Act of 1941 and section 4AAAA(4) of the Act of 1954, the registered dealers seldom made purchases of raw materials and packing materials for use in manufactures against declaration, reaping the benefit of concessional rate of tax in fear of liability of payment of heavy amount of penalty if they intended to transfer the finished goods outside West Bengal otherwise than by way of inter-State sale or export sale. The contention is that when after coming into force of this permissive legislation in section 5A(4) of the Act of 1941 and section 4AAAA(4) of the Act of 1954 on October 10, 1977, the benefit of concessional rate of sales tax referred to in section 5(1)(bb) of the Act of 1941 or section 23A of the Act of 1954 had been extended to the registered dealers, the purchase taxes paid by such registered dealers for these long 13 years from 1977, without any protest whatsoever before the decision of the Supreme Court in the Goodyear case [1990] 76 STC 71 should not be refunded to them. 30.. To dispose of these rival contentions, it is necessary to discuss the law relating to refund, as evolved by the Supreme Court in several decis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h of five Judges. Though it was ruled in that case that the Government to whom the payment of sales tax had been made by mistake must in law repay it on the basis of the provisions in section 72 of the Contract Act, it was also stated in that case that the special remedy provided in article 226 of the Constitution was not intended to supersede completely the modes of obtaining relief by an action in civil court or to deny defences legitimately open in such actions. It was decided in that case on November 20, 1964, that where a person came to court for relief under article 226 of the Constitution on the allegation that he had been assessed to tax under a void legislation and the court found that the assessment was void, the court was not still bound to exercise its discretion, directing repayment. It was decided in that case that the discretion directing the payment would have to be exercised on considering the facts and circumstances in each case. It was further held in that case that if unreasonable delay or triable issue as regards availability of such relief on merits on ground like limitation was there, the court should ordinarily refuse to issue the writ of mandamus for such p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anation provided, inter alia, that in sections 115 and 116 "land revenue" included royalty provided that land revenue remitted should not be deemed to be land revenue payable for the purpose of that section. The appellant in that case questioned the levy of cess under section 115 of the Madras Act on royalty. The question involved in that case was whether levy or impost of cess on royalty under section 115 of the Madras Act could be justified or sustained under entry 49, 50 or 45 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and was within the legislative competence of the State Legislature. It was held in that case by majority that royalty was a tax and, as such, a cess on royalty, being a tax on royalty, was beyond the competence of the State Legislature, as section 9 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, covered the field and the State Legislature was denuded of its competence under entry 23 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The decision in the case of H.R.S. Murthy AIR 1965 SC 177, was overruled. The question of refund of the cess already collected on the basis of the Madras Act was thereafter considered by the Supreme ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... H.R.S. Murthy AIR 1965 SC 177 the Supreme Court declared the levy of cess in the case of India Cement Limited AIR 1990 SC 85; [1990] 1 SCC 12 to be ultra vires the power of the State Legislature prospectively only. Mr. S. Sen, the learned advocate for the applicants, has contended that in the India Cement case AIR 1990 SC 85; [1990] 1 SCC 12, cess had been realised for the organisation of village and town panchayats and comprehensive programme of measures had been framed under the National Extension Service Scheme. The contention is that the directive principles of State policy embodied in the Constitution enjoined that the State should undertake steps to organise village panchayats and endow them with the power and authority as might be necessary to enable them to function as units of self-Government and as the amounts had been realised on that basis, the Supreme Court declared the cess on royalty in the case of India Cement Limited AIR 1990 SC 85; [1990] 1 SCC 12 to be ultra vires prospectively. Mr. S. Sen, the learned advocate for the applicants, contends that in these cases relating to purchase tax, there is no previous decision of the Supreme Court holding that the levy and c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orporation, all steel companies and many other companies owned by Central Government. The contention is that the sale price of products manufactured by such companies is much less than the cost of production of such goods resulting in heavy loss to the Government. As such, there can be no question of inclusion of purchase tax in the cost of production and collection of purchase tax from the customers in the case of such Government-owned public companies. It is contended by Mr. Sen that if direction for refund is granted from the date of payment of purchase taxes levied and collected on and from October 10, 1977, there will be no unjust enrichment of the assessee/dealers. This contention cannot be accepted. As already stated, the passing on of the purchase tax to the consumers according to usual trade practice, as alleged in the affidavit-in-opposition, has not been challenged by the applicants in their affidavits-in-reply. It has been decided by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Synthetics and Chemicals Limited [1991] 3 JT 268 (SC) that taxes on sale or purchase are not governed by the Price Control Orders issued by the Central Government under section 18G ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es. In short, the general principle that a refund is the inevitable consequence of declaration of invalidity of a fiscal statute should not be applied in these cases when there was payment of purchase taxes without any protest till the decision of this Tribunal on September 11, 1990, in the case of Rasoi Limited [1991] 80 STC 356 and when there would be unjust enrichment of the assessee-dealers, passing on the purchase taxes to the consumers. There should, therefore, be no order for refund of purchase taxes paid or payable for the period from October 10, 1977 to September 10, 1990, namely, the date preceding the date of judgment in Rasoi Limited [1990] 80 STC 356. I am, accordingly, of the opinion that the purchase taxes, if paid, for the period from the date of declaration of invalidity of the provisions of section 4(6)(ii) of the Act of 1941 and section 4(2)(i) of the Act of 1954 by this Tribunal in the case of Rasoi Limited [1991] 80 STC 356, namely, on and from September 11, 1990 should be refunded, because the State and the assessee-applicants became fully aware with effect from September 11, 1990 that the enactments imposing the tax were invalid and unconstitutional. So, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unds to the applicants of those cases. No order as to payment of interest on the amounts to be refunded was passed in those cases. The applicants in these cases have also prayed for making refunds within six months from the date of the order of this Tribunal. I am, accordingly, of the opinion that there will be a direction for refund of purchase taxes levied, collected or paid for the period from September 11, 1990, within six months from the date of this judgment. 36.. The applications in all these eleven cases are, accordingly, allowed in part. It is declared that purchase tax is not payable by the applicants in these eleven cases under section 4(6)(ii) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 or section 4(2)(i) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954. The respondents are directed to refund to the applicants in these eleven cases the purchase taxes collected, paid or payable for the period from September 11, 1990, along with interest, if any, realised for nonpayment of purchase taxes payable for the period from September 11, 1990, within six months from this date, after verifying the correctness of the particulars of the refundable amounts. Respondents are directed no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s regarding consideration of provisions relating to exemptions together with the charging provisions for the purpose of ascertaining the pith and substance of the impugned pieces of legislation. But, in any Constitution of federal character, having defined territories for each Legislature, there is a tendency to out-reach the boundaries and occupy the forbidden area. This is not always done directly; sometimes this is achieved by enacting various provisions scattered over various parts of a legislation. The real meaning and the true effect and intent have to be necessarily gathered from a composite consideration of all the relevant parts of the statute by removing the apparent veil of innocence. In the instant case, unless the exemption provisions enacted by the 1990 amendment are taken into consideration, the real impact and the true effect of the impugned legislation for imposition of the "purchase tax" cannot be realised. The decision in Buxa Dooar's case [1989] 74 STC 447 (SC); AIR 1989 SC 2015, is an authority as well as an illustration on this point. The decisions in [1957] 8 STC 561 (SC) (A.V. Fernandez v. State of Kerala), [1967] 20 STC 430 (SC); AIR 1967 SC 1895 (Devi Dass....