Skip to content


M/S. S. Shiragannavar and Bros., a Firm Registered Under the Partnership Act Doing Business in Commission Agency at Jamkhandi, Dist., Bijapur by Its Partner, Shir Basappa Shiddappa Shiragannavar, Age About 35 and Residing at Jamkhandi, Dist. Bijapur and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka, by Its Secretary, Finance Dept., Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore-1 and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petition No. 6311 of 1975
Reported in(1976)5CTR(Kar)0126B
AppellantM/S. S. Shiragannavar and Bros., a Firm Registered Under the Partnership Act Doing Business in Com
RespondentThe State of Karnataka, by Its Secretary, Finance Dept., Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore-1 and anr.
Excerpt:
.....was dispensed with and petitioner had no opportunity before disciplinary authority. further, statement made before investigating officer cannot be treated as an admission under section 27 of evidence act. - 4. i am of the view that the impugned provisions which were introduced into the act by the amending act are very well within the legislative power of 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.'the additional tax levied under section 6-b has, in the light of the observations made by the supreme court, to be held as a tax levied under entry 54 of list ii. hence the attack against the impugned provision based on entry 54 fails.3. the fact that a dealer cannot collect the additional tax from his constituent also would not alter the character of the additional tax. in the above decision, the supreme court also has approved the observations made by it earlier in konduri buchirajalingam vs. state of hyderabad (a.i.r. 1958 s.c. 756), in which it was held that a tax which was levied on the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

E. S. Venkataramiah, J. - In this writ petition the petitioners who are carrying on business as commission agents within the market yards established by the Agricultural Produce Market Committees of Jamkhandi and Mahalingapura of Bijapur District have questioned the constitutional validity of section 6-B of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act of 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act which was introduced by section 3 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (Second Amendment) Act 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act) and of section 18(3) of the Act which was introduced by section 4 of the Amending Act. Section 6-8 of the Act reads as follows :-

'There shall be levied and collected from every dealer liable to pay tax under section 5 or under section 6 and whose total turnover is ten lakh rupees more in a year, an additional tax at the rate of ten paise in the rupee on the sales tax or purchase tax or both payable by such dealer :-

Provided that in respect of the sale or purchase of any of the declared goods mentioned in the Fourth Schedule, the tax together with the additional tax shall not exceed three per cent of the sale of purchase price thereof'.

Section 18(3) of the Act reads as follows :-

'Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) no dealer who is liable to pay the additional tax under section 6-B, shall collect any amount by way of such additional tax or purporting to be by way of such additional tax payable by him'.

2. The case of the petitioners is that the levy of additional tax under section 6-B which cannot be collected by way of such additional tax from the purchasers cannot be considered as tax levied in exercise of the power vested in the State Legislature by Entry 54 of List II of the VII Schedule of the Constitution of India. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that the incompetent to levy. This question is no longer res-integra. In S. Kodar vs. State of Kerala (A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 2272), where a provision similar to section 6-B of the Act was questioned, the Supreme Court observed as follows :-

'As regards the contention that the State Legislature has no power to pass the measure, we are of the view that the additional tax is really a tax on the sale of goods. The object of the Act, as is clear from its provisions, is to increase the tax on the sale or purchase of goods imposed by Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Act, 1959 and the fact that quantum of the additional tax is determined with reference to the sales tax imposed would not alter its character. It may be noted that additional tax is to be imposed only if the turnover of a dealer exceeds Rs. 10 lakhs. IT is reality a tax on the aggregate of sales effected by a dealer during a year. The additional tax therefore, is an enhancement in the rate of the sales tax when the turnover of a dealer exceeds Rs. 10 lakhs a 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 vs. State of Kerala, (1966) 18 STC 445 at page 449 (Ker). Which was affirmed by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Kalikar vs. Sales Tax Officer (1968) 21 STC 252 (Ker.) took the view. The same view was taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in A. S. Ramchandra Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1969) 24 STC 133 (Andh. Pra.). 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.'

The additional tax levied under section 6-B has, in the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court, to be held as a tax levied under Entry 54 of List II. Hence the attack against the impugned provision based on Entry 54 fails.

3. The fact that a dealer cannot collect the additional tax from his constituent also would not alter the character of the additional tax. In the above decision, the Supreme Court also has approved the observations made by it earlier in Konduri Buchirajalingam vs. State of Hyderabad (A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 756), in which it was held that a tax which was levied on the sales effected by a dealer could still retain the character of the sales tax even though he had no power to recoup the amount of tax payable by him from any other party. Hence, the second contention also fails.

4. I am of the view that the impugned provisions which were introduced into the Act by the amending Act are very well within the Legislative power of the State Legislature.

5. It is however, argued by Sri, W. K. Joshi learned counsel for the petitioners that on a true interpretations of the definition of the expression dealer occurring in the Act and the provisions of section 6-B of the Act the petitioners who are merely commissioner agents of several principals would not be liable to pay the additional tax because none of the principals on whose behalf they act is carrying on any business in which the total turnover exceeds Rs. 10 lakhs. This contention does not relate to the constitutional validity of the impugned provisions. Whether the construction sought to be placed by Sri. Joshi on the provisions of the statute has to be accepted or not will have to be decided by the authorities functioning under the Act. I do not therefore express any opinion on this question.

6. With these observations, the petition is dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //