The Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Vs. Pierce Leslie and Co. Ltd. - Court Judgment
|Court||Kerala High Court|
|Case Number||Tax Revision Case No. 10 of 1957|
|Judge|| M.A. Ansari and; T.C. Raghavan, JJ.|
|Appellant||The Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax|
|Respondent||Pierce Leslie and Co. Ltd.|
|Appellant Advocate||The Government Pleader|
|Respondent Advocate|| G.B. Pai,; P. Govindan Nair,; K.V.R. Shenoi and; |
|Cases Referred||Sundararamier and Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh|
- contempt of courts act, 1971 -- sections 20 & 2(b); [j.b. koshy, a.k. basheer & k.p. balachandran, jj] civil contempt limitation under section 20 held, aggrieved party should file an application within one year of date of contempt. date of application will be considered as date on which contempt proceedings were initiated. where the application was filed within one month from the date of contempt and the court delayed posting of case for more than four years for no fault of the petitioner, the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit applies. petition is not barred by limitation. .....has given the relief, is that the aforesaid amount represents the price of goods got through inter state sales and could not be charged because the prohibition under article 286(2) had not been lifted. the tribunal has further held that the sales tax laws validation act, 1956, does not save the tax, as there were no provisions in the travancore-cochin sales tax act authorising levy of tax on such inter-state sales. in this connection the tribunal relies on the decision by the travancore high court in cochin coal company's case  7 s.t.c. 731. since then the supreme court has in sundararamier and co. v. state of andhra pradesh  9 s.t.c. 298 held that section 2(h) read with section 22 of the madras general sales tax act authorised levy of sales tax and therefore the provisions.....
M.A. Ansari, J.
1. This revision petition seeks to vary the order by the Appellate Tribunal, whereby the dealer's appeal has been partly allowed and a sum of Rs. 67,774-11-1 has been held not liable to sales tax. The ground, on which the Tribunal has given the relief, is that the aforesaid amount represents the price of goods got through inter State sales and could not be charged because the prohibition under Article 286(2) had not been lifted. The Tribunal has further held that the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, 1956, does not save the tax, as there were no provisions in the Travancore-Cochin Sales Tax Act authorising levy of tax on such inter-State sales. In this connection the Tribunal relies on the decision by the Travancore High Court in Cochin Coal Company's case  7 S.T.C. 731. Since then the Supreme Court has in Sundararamier and Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh  9 S.T.C. 298 held that Section 2(h) read with Section 22 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act authorised levy of sales tax and therefore the provisions of the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act would be attracted to such taxes as had been levied during the period stated in the Validation Act. Section 26 of the Travancore-Cochin Sales Tax Act is similar to Section 22 of the Madras Act and so is the definition. It follows that the provisions of the Validation Act would be attracted to the tax levied on sales during 1954-55, which is within the period mentioned in the Act. Therefore the ground on which the dealer had been given relief in the case is legally incorrect and the part of the Tribunal's order in favour of the dealer is reversed. The order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is restored and the revision petition is allowed with costs. Counsel's fee fixed at Rs. 150.