TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (12) TMI 742
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for realization of the amount determined by annexure III series. The respondents have placed on record their counter-affidavit and have supported the impugned action. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. In the beginning of 1989, a large number of persons died on account of consumption of spurious country-made liquor which led to C. W. J. C. No. 4722 of 1989 (Bihar Distiller's Association v. State of Bihar). A Division Bench of this Court passed an interim order on May 9, 1989 (annexure 1), whereby the State Government was directed to take over the wholesale trade and business of country-made liquor as a temporary mea-sure for the sake of life, health, and hygiene of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her notice from the authorities under the Act, the State Government did not deposit the amount as per annexure 3 series, leading to attachment of the bank accounts of the petitioner and drawal of funds towards satisfaction of the demand. Hence, the writ petition. 3. While assailing the validity of the impugned action, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though section 206C of the Act does not pro-vide any period of limitation, the authorities under the Act could have taken action within a reasonable time. He relies on the following reported judgments : (1) Shalimar Works Ltd. v. Their Workmen [1959] AIR 1959 SC 1217 ; (2) Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin v. Fatmabai Ibrahim [1997] 6 SCC 71 ; (3) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lizable by the petitioner was entirely based on the facts and figures supplied by the petitioner. He also submits that, in view of the law in force read with the relevant circulars of the Central Board of Direct Taxes during the period in question, the Revenue rightly realized 10 per cent. of the purchase price along with interest. He submits that the purchase price had to comprise the costs, the profits, and the excise duty under the State laws. He relies on the judgment of a Division Bench of this court in State of Bihar v. CIT [1993] 202 ITR 535 (Patna). He next submits that the impugned action is not hit by the provision of article 289 of the Constitution of India. He relies on the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., was done by the authorities under the Act as per annexure III series, after following the prescribed procedure and in accordance with law. We, therefore, do not find fault with annexure 3 series. 7. We must consider the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner that annexure III series was not passed within a reasonable time. We are of the view that reasonable time would commence from the date of know-ledge. The petitioner has not brought to our notice any material to show that the Revenue had come to know of non-realization of TDS, and sat over the matter creating an impression of laches and negligence. The contention is rejected. 8. We also agree with the submission advanced on behalf of the Revenue that it act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ess, or any income accruing or arising in connection therewith. (3) Nothing in clause (2) shall apply to any trade or business, or to any class of trade or business, which Parliament may by law declare to be incidental to the ordinary functions of Government." 10. Sub-article (1) of article 289 exempts the State Government from Union taxation in so far as its property and income is concerned. The same is obviously inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case because neither the property nor the income of the State of Bihar has been sought to be taxed by the Union of India. TDS is only a method of collection of tax. It is, therefore, an advance collection of tax on behalf of the Revenue with respect to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....therefore, submitted that realization of TDS from the petitioner, even if it is conceded for the sake of argument that the petitioner was guilty of non-realization of the same from the retailers, will result in unjust enrichment to the Revenue. We do not find it possible to agree with the contention because one swallow does not makea summer. It can be safely presumed that the petitioner must have sold country-made liquor to thousands of retailers spread over the undivided State of Bihar, comprising the present States of Bihar and Jharkhand. A sample of a few orders with respect to a few of the retailers does not satisfyus that all the retailers were taxed in accordance with law, and the Revenue has not suffered any loss. 13. In vi....