TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1965 (8) TMI 8
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee debited a sum of Rs. 29,482 in its accounts as additional sales tax payable under the U. P. Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1956, which replaced the Ordinance No. XI of 1956 dated the 31st March, 1956, whereby the sales tax was raised from 3 pies and 6 pies to one anna per rupee. The validity of the ordinance and the Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1956, was challenged and they were declared to be ultra vires by this court by its order dated the 5th May, 1957. Subsequent thereto, the U. P. Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1957, was enacted on the 30th September, 1957. This also was declared to be ultra vires by an order of this court dated the 11th February, 1958. On the 21st August, 1957, the assessee purported to raise a debit of Rs. 29,482, which i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....accounting. Anticipated losses and contigent liabilities cannot be claimed. Even if the liability in future is likely to be imposed then too no liability can be raised as the liability will be an unascertained one and not an enforceable one. Just as no income can accrue until a person has acquired a right to receive it, i.e., he must have created a debt in his favour, though it may be payable later, no liability can be created unless it is ascertained and legally enforceable : vide Keshav Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Indermani Jatia v. Commissioner of Income-tax, E. D. Sassoon and Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gajapathy Naidu. In the present ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... justified in the present case in exercising his power under section 35 and rectifying the said mistakes. " The Supreme Court laid down in the latter case that " a court of appeal . . . must give effect to the law as it stands if the law has, at some stage anterior to the hearing of the appeal, been amended retrospectively with the object of conferring upon the authority or Tribunal of first instance, from the order whereof the appeal is filed, jurisdiction which it originally lacked. " In that case, though the U. P. Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1949, was amended after the High Court had delivered its judgment, yet the Supreme Court took the view that it was bound to consider the amended law as it stood at the time of the hearing of the a....