Slate of WtSt Bengal v. M/1. B. K. Mondal

HIDAYATULLAH, J.--The appellants are. a firm of general merchants whfoh sells, among other goods manufactured tobacco as defined in the Punjab Tobacco Vend Fees Act, 1954 (12 of 1954), which came into force in the State of Punjab from April 1, 1954. The firm is also a registered dealer under s. 7 of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 and till the end of March, 1954, was paying sales tax on manufactured tobacco also. Indeed, the firm paid sales ~ax on manufactured tobacco, also for the next quarter ending on June 30, 1954, but did not pay in the succeeding quarter in view of certain events, to which a detailed reference will be made presently. On September 27, 1954, the State Government iRsued a Notification (No. 4556-E & T (Ch)-54/957) by which the schedule of exemptions under s. 6 of the Sales Tax Act was amended by the inclusion of item 51, which reads as follows: "51. Manufactured tobacco as defined in the Punjab Tobacco Vend Fees Act, 1954." This Notification was preceded by a Notification of May 7, 1954 (No.

427-E & T (Ch)-54/369), by which the State Government had given notice, as required by law, of its intention to add the said item in the schedule of exemptions. In June, 1954, the State Government issued a Press Note by which it was· intended to convey to the dealers that though the Tobacco Vend Fees Act had come into force from April 1, l!J54, it was not intended to levy both the sales tax as well as the fee for any period. The Press Note reads as follows: "There is . some misapprehension in the minds of dealers in manufactured tobacco as to whether sales tax is also chargeable in res pect of manufactured tobacco after the , , . • 1961 M/s. Mathra Prashad v. Slat~ of Punjab Hiiq; alu//ah J. 916 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. lst April, l!J54, in addition to the license fees under t.he Tobacco Vend Fees Act. Govern ment would like to make it: clear that alr, hougb the Tobacco Vend Fe<'s Act has come into force wit.h effect from 1st A'pril, )954, no license fees for dealers have yet heen pres cribed undor the Aot.

Ther!lfore, the levy of sales tax continues till the Vend Feo licences come int<;> operation. It is to be clcady under stood t-hat the Vend Fee·,yi!I be.proportionate ly reduced for the current financial yt>ar to adjust the period for wbfoh:sa"les tax will ha.ve been charged. Manufactur!'d tobacco will bo exempted from sales tax simultaneonsly with the·enforcemcnt of the Vend ]'e<'s." On August 2, l 954, the State Government issued an_rll,l1llr Press N::ote, in which .the decision ·was alteriic1. The Press Note said: "Governme.nt ,rt>cen tly ann om~ced through a ·press note that "the l(lvy' of Sales Tax on manufactured tobacco wo1ild be continued till the Vend Fee 'Licences camo into operation ahd that the Vend Fee woutd ho proportio nately redu_ced for the currt>n~ financial year in respect. of the per!od f~r 'll;'hich Sales Tax: In, or<ler to avoid woulq have been. charged. double taxation, Government havo since recon~idereci the ~atter an<l have, in supcrnes sion <;>f the previous d,~cis, ion, deci<led that the Saje~ Tax, if, any, reoo, vere<l from tho deal~rs would be refunded n.nd that no Sales Tax would be charged durii]g tpe current financial year In r~spect of sn.le11 ot. toliacco which fall under'the Tobacco Venc:I Fee11 Act.

Tobacco Vend Fees Will be recovered r.t full rates for the whole year as arid when rules under the Pqnjab Tobacc,o Ventl.'Fees Act are finalised. " It appears that the Rule!l under the Tobacco Vend Fees Act were not promulgated; nor were the forms ' 1961 M/1.Mathra Prashad Y, Stai. of Punjob Hid•Jatullali J, (1) s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 917 and licances prescribed during the financial year ending on March 31, 1955. In the meantime, the appellants, as already stated, paid sales tax on sales of manufactured tobacco for the first quarter end ing June 30, 1954, and the Notification exempting manufactured tobacco from sales tax was issued on September 27, 1954. The appellants had made en· quiries from the Excise and Taxation Commii!sioner, Punjab, about the Press Note of August 2, 1954, and had been assured that the Notification as print ed in the Newspapers was accurate, and Government intended implementing the Press Note.

On January 23, 1956, the appellants received a notice from the Excise and Taxation Officer, Rohtak, calling upon them to produce their account books. The appellants as well as other dealers of manufac tured tobacco similarly affected, made representa tions on the basis of the Press Note of August 2, 1954, but without success. The appellants then filed on February 8, 1956 a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for substantially three reliefs. They were: (a) a declaration that the levy of sales tax on manufactured tobacco upto September 26, 1954 was illegal; (b) refund of the sales tax paid by it for the quarter ending June 30, 1954; and (c) an order in the nature of a writ of Prohibition against the proposed levy of sales tax till September 26, 1954. It remains to mention that the sales tax authorities were acting in conformity with a Press Note issued in August, 1955, by which the State Government went back upon the policy declared in .August, 1954 and reaffirmed the policy stated in the Press Note of June, 1954.

The following extract from the Press Note of August, 1955 may be read here: "2. In conformity with the press note issued in June, 1954, and in view of the facts ex plained above, Government have now decided that sales tax on tobacco shall be levied for the yea.r 1954-55 before the 27th September, 1954 - •• . I 1961 J<I/s. Mal/ira Prtuh&I '· Stale of Punjab HiJa.,.1uUali J. 918 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. f*- only, the dntc on which tolmcco was inclu ded in the schedule of exemptionH appei1rl ed to the General Sales Tax A('.t. This amo1111ts to a handS(•me concession to the dcall'rn and Government except that, in return, every co operation shall be shown by the dealers of the assessing authorities in the matt<'r of the asscssmrnt of the tax. " The petition under Art. 226 was hrnrd l>y a lea.med Single Judge of the Punjab High Court, who held that the orders of Government were entirely in accordance with law, that the East Punjab Sa.Jes Tax Act, in so far as it relate<l to the sale of manufactured tobacco was not r~pealed by the Tobacco Vend Fees Act, and that sales tax tobacco was payable frum on manufactured April I, 1954 to SAptember 26, 1 \15-1, in view of the fact that the exemption was made on Sepkm bor 27, 1954, and would operate from the latter date.

Against the decision of the learned Judge dismissing the writ petition, an appcul under Letters Patent was filed. The Divisioual Be11ch, which heard the appeal, agreed with the judgment from, and dismissed the appeal. A appealed certificate was, however, granted to the appellants and the present appeal has been fil<'d. Two contentions were raised in the forefront before the High Court, by the appellants. The first was that the Punjab Tobacco Vend Fees Act had pro tanto repealed the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, and that sales tax on manufactured tobacco could not be IP.vied aft<'r Apr ii I, 19;,.;, The second was that the State Government by its aBSurance in the Press Note of August, HJiH, had cstopped itself from reversing its policy an<l claim ing the sales tax up to the date of the Notification. These points were not seriously pressed upon us, because there can bo two taxes on the same com modity or goods without the 0110 law repealing the other.

No repeal oa.n be implied, unlt•ss thore .. . , 1961 .:.llfs. ll!at Aro Pr<1shad v. State of Punjab H idayatullah J. -. -··· • : . , I ·' (I) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 919 is an express repeal of an earlier Act by the later Act, or unless the two Acts cannot stand together. The first arg11ment was, therefore, rightly rejected in the High Court. The second argument is also without force. There can be no estoppel against a statute. If the law requires that a certain tax be collected, it cannot be given up, and any assur ance that it would not be collected, would not bind the State Government, whenever it choose to collect it. The question which is now raised, and of which there is but a trace in the High Court is the real one to decide, and it may be formulated thus ; Did the exemption in the Notification issued on September 27, 1954 have effect from that date, or from the beginning of the financial year?

We are not concerned with the question whether, in the absence ofrules and forms, tlie Punjab Tobacco Vend Fees Act, 1954 could operate from April l, 1951. Whether it did or did not, can make no difference to the ~ale tax, because the Punjab Tobacco Vend Fees Act, 1954 did not abrogate the Sales Tax Act. If sales tax was not payable, it would be because of the exemption, and the only question thus is when the exemption began to operate. The Notifio.1tion does not say from what date the exemption operates. Taking the Notifica tion by itself, it cannot be said that it oomee into force from an earlier date. Both sides have thus called in aid provisions of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act and the Rules to determine the date from which the exemption can be said to operate. Reference was made by the appellants to a deci sion of this Court in The Oommiasioner of Saks Tax, U.P. v. The Modi Sugar Mills Ltd.

('), where a notifica tion increasing sales tax on edible oils issued in the middle of the year 1948 was held not to apply to the asseRsee in that year, inasmuch as its liability to tax had become fixed on April 1, ear lier, as it had elected to pay tax on the turnover of the previous (I) [1961J 2 S. C.R. p. 189. 1941 M/s. Mathta has had V, Stah of l'unjab Hidayatul/ah J. 920 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1062) SUPP. year. The scheme of taxation under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (15 of 1948) nnd the Hules under that Act is so vastly different from the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act and the Rules under it, that a detailed reference to that case may not be necessary. The question thus mu&t be viewed in the set· ting of the East Punjab Sales Tax Act and the Rules under it. We shall refer to th~m shortly as the Act and the H.ulcs in tho rest of this judgment. The Act was passed in 1948, and came into force on November 15, 1948.

Previous to this, sometimes licence fee under an earlier Tobacco Vend l<'ees Act and sometimes sales tax also under an earlier Sales Tax Act had been levied but not side by side in the Province. The history of these earlier Acts was brought to our notice during tho course of the argu ment, hut nothing turns upon it. The sa!P.s tax under the Act continued to be levied up to April I, 1954, and none has disputed that it could be levied. On that date, tho Punjub Tobacco Vend Fees Act came into force. We have already said that the latter Act did not repeal pro tanto the earlier. The liability for sales tax in this appeal is for two quarters ending June 30, 1954, and September 30, 1954. There is no dispute that aftor September 27, 1954 sales tax could not be levied, in view of the inclusion of item 51 in the schedule exempting manufactured tobacco from the operation of the Act. We must now examine those provisions of the Act which are claimed by the rival parties to indicate the moment of time from which the exemp tion gr•nted by the Notification began to operate.

"Twnover" has been defined in the Aot to include the aggr<'gato of the amounts of sales and parts of sales actually made by any dealer during the given period, less uerta.in allowances, and "yllar" means the financial year. Sections 4 and 5 read together a.re the charging sections, the first dealing with the incidence of the tax, and the second, with its rate. Section 6 ( l) provides for excm ptions on the sale of • • • • .. 1961 M/s. Mathra Prashad •• Slall of Punjab Hidayalullah J. ( 1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 921 goods which are specified in schedulo to the Act. Under s. 6 (2), the State Government has been given the power to add to or delete from that schedule. Section 10 deals with the making of returns and payment of .the tax. Section ?,7 empowers the · l::ltate Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. This is the general scheme of the Act, in so far as we are concerned ; but a somewhat detailed examination of these sections is necessary to understand the rival contentions.

Section 4 consists of five sub-sections. Sub Section (1), which is a subject to the provisions of ss. 5 and 6, says that every dealer, except one dealing exclusively in goods declared tax-free under s. 6, whose gross turnover during the year• immedia the commencement of the Act tely preceding exceeded the taxable quantum, shall be liable ·to pay tax under the Act on all sales effected after the coming into force of this Act. A proviso is added, which is not relevant. Sub-section (2) says that every dealer who is liable to pay tax under the first sub-section shall be liable to pay it on the expiry of 30 de.ys after the date on . which his gross turnover first exceeds the taxable quantum. Sub-sections (3) and ( 4) deal with the continuance of the liability of the dealer undE)r· certain circum stances, and are not relevant here. Sub-section (5) then defines "taxable quwtum" in relation to different kinds of dealers, and fixes a certain a.mount as the lowest limit.

Since, in the present case, the taxable quantum is above the limit . appli cable to the appellants and they are also admittedly dealers, a detailed reference to the provisions of sub-a. (5) is unnecessary. Section 5, which deals with the rate of tax, is made subject to the other provisions of the Act, and the first sub-section says that there shall be levied on the taxable turnover every year of a dealer a. tax at such rates (not ex• ceeding two pice in a rupee) as the State Govern ment may by notification direct. "Taxable turuover" ' . ' j . , I .. 1961 Jll /s. Afathra P1a1had v. Stalt oj J>··njab Hitlayal~ '.ai J. 922 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [l!J62) SUPP. su b·section tho second is then defint-d by mean that part of a dealer's gross turnover duriug any period which remains after deducting there from, in Jer alia his turnover during that period of tax-free sales, sales to registered dealers, sales to auy undertakinir supplying electrical energy, sales to dealers outside Punjab and other sales, as may he pre~cribcd.

With none of these deductions we are concerned in this C'18e • .Kow, the appellants emphasise the words "gross turnover during the year" in s.4 ( J) and the words "taxable turnovt>r every year of a dealer" in s. 5 ( 1), and argue that the tax is computed year- wise, and the exemption must, therefore, operate for the whole of the year in which it is made, irrespective of the date on which the Xotification is made. The respondents, on the other hand, emphasise the words "gross turnover during any period·• and "his turnover during that period" occurring is not year-wise but accrues, so to speak, from day to day or at least from period to period within a year, and the exemption thus operates not from the whole of the year, but for the period within which it is granted, and refer in aid of this argument, to ss. 6 and 10. Sections 4 (I) and 5 (I) are subject to s. 6, s. 5 (1 ), to other sections of the Act and so, s.

10, and we have to see what they provide. Section 6 (1) is brief, and may be quoted in extcnso. It reads: in s. 5, and contend "6 (1). No tax shall he payable under this Act on the sale of goods specified in the first column of the Schedule, subject to the conditions and exc11ptions, if any, set out in the corresponding entry in the second column thereof and no dealer shall charge Sales Tax on the sale of goods which are declared tax- free from time to time under this section. " The respondents emphasise the words "from time to time" in the first sub-section, and say that , ( . . t . 19~1 --,.- M/s. Mathra Prashad Y, State of Punjai Hidayatullah J. _,.. (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 923 they also show that exemptions may be given, withdrawn, or given again and rgain several times during the year in respect of the same goods, and the exemptions, therefore, begin to operate when they are given and cease, when they are withdrawn.

But, the appellants contend that these words merely indicate that the power may be exercised as often as needed, and do not indicate the time from which the operation of the exemption commences and the period during which it lasts. Section 10 ( 1) provio~s that the tax payable under the Act shall be paid m the manner provided at such intervals, as may be prescribed. Two Rules framed under s. 27 provide for such intervals. Rule 20 reads : "Every registered dealer other than those referred to in rules 17, 18 and 19, shall furnish returng in Form S.T.VIII or S.T. XXIJJ, if so permitted quarterly within thirty the expiry of each quarter. " (words underlined were introduced on June 28, 1955). Rule 23: "Notwithstanding the provisions of rules 20 and 21, the appropriate Assessing Authority may, for. reasons to be reco~ded in writing, fix monthly returns for a dealer, who would otherwise be required to furnish quarterly or annually under these rules.

" Section 10 and Rules 20 and 23 clearly provide that returns may be made annually, quarterly or mon thly. The forms, S. T. VIII and S.T. XXIU, also are forms of returns of sales tax payable for the year; quarterly or monthly. It is thus possible that some dealers pay tax annually some, quarterly, and some, monthly. The contention of the appellants is that s.10 read whith Rules 20 and 23 merely provides for making of returns at prescribed intervals and the - ' , I 1961 M/J. Matlrta Pr<UAod •• S1o11 of Pimjd Hida7•to/loh J. 924 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. result. The the whole year's collection of tax is for a period falling between those intervals, but the tax is the tax appropriate respondents contend that the effect of the section and the two Rules is that the tax due for the period of the return is eeparate from any other tax for any other period. Each period, according to them, must be viewed separately and not as pa.rt of a year.

Thus, if exemption is granted durir.g the second quarter, according to the respondents it affects that quarter and subsequent quarters but not the first quarter, be cause tax is payable on the turnover of a period and at such intervals, as may be applicable to an asscssce. We cannot help saying that the Act and the Notification could have been framed to obviate such unnecessary questions by providing clearly in them the time from which such exemptions would begin to operate. Similarly, if the rules under the Punjab Tobacco Vend J<'ees Act had been framed in time and the Tobaooo Vend Fees Act together with the Rules under it and the exemptions under the Sales Tax Act were brought into force together, a considerable amount of time to the Department and the the Courts would have been saved, all also trouble to the tax-payer. The Rules under tho Punjab Tobacco Vend J<'ees Act were not framed during the whole of the financial year, 1954-55. iBBued, which Contradictory Press N ates were showed that the State Government itself was not sure of the true legal position, thus causing great confusion and distrust in the minds of the tax payer11.

There is no doubt that the tax is a yearly tax. It was payable, in the first instance, by a dealer whose gross turnover during the financial year immediately preceding May 1, 1949, was above the taxable quantum. The tax is to be levied on the taxable turnover of a dealer every year. The diffor ence between gross turnover and taxable turnover is this, that to arrive at the taxable turnover of - •• 1961 M/s. ,~fathr11 P.ashad Y. State of Punjab Hidayatullah J. -- ,. •• • I (l) S.C.R. SUPREME OOURT REPORTS 925 any period some deductions have to be made for the same period. This clearly shows that the tax is for a year. The method of collection allows collection of tax at intervals; in some cases, the tax is collected at the end of the year; in some others, the tax is collected quarterly and in still oth ~r cases, even monthly. If the exemption can be said to operate for that period for which 1the tax is payable according as it is annually, quarterly or monthly, the tax would be different for different persons.

Those who are paying the tax annually would get exemp· tion for the whole year; but those who are paying it quarterly or monthly would get benefit in the quarter or the month of the Notification but not for earlier quarters or months. It could not have been intended that the exemption was to operate differently in the case of dealers with different intervals of assessment. The exemption thus must operate either from the date of the Notification or from the commence ment of the financial year. Here, the nature of the tax, as disclosed in ss. 4 and 5, is decisive. In s. (5), the tax is made leviable "on the taxable turnover every year of a dealer". The divisions of the year and the taxable turnover into different parts are to make easy the collection of tax, and form part.of the machinery sections. If the tax is yearly and is to be paid on the taxable turnover of a dealer, then the exemption, whenever it comes in, in the year for which the tax is payable, would exempt sales of those goods throughout the year, unless the Act said that the Notification was not to have this effect, or the Notification fixed the date for the commencement of the exemption.

In the present case, the NotiCication did not fix the date from which the exemption was to operate, probably because the Act omitted to make such provi· sion, enabling the State to do so, and the exemption must, therefore, operate for the whole year, during which it was granted. 1961 M/s. Math•a Pres had •• Stak of PUflja6 Hidayahdlah .T. Kapur .1. --- . , • • • t . 926 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. The case of this Court, to which we h&ve referred earlier, dealt with an Act under which the taxpayer could elect to pay the tax on the turnover of either thl.' previous year or the :war of assess ment. A notification in the middle of the assessment year was considered, and was held inapplicable in those <'ases where a dealer had elect. Pd to pay tax on the tumo-.er of hill previous year. The majority view on that occasion pointed out that it was not possible to divide the a~sessment year in two por tions, in which the tax wns levied at one rate in one part and another rate in another part.

The case was confined to a dealer who had elected to pay the tax for a year different from that in which the exemption was granted. Those facts do not exist here; but if the case is considered at all relevant, it supports the appellants rather than the respon dents. In the result, the appeal succeeds, and ie allowed with coats. KAP"GR, J.-The facts of this case have been set out in the judgment of my learned brother Hidayatullah J., which I have bad the advantage of reading and as I am unable to agrco with the conclusion that the effect of the exPmpt ion given by Notification No .. 4;j56-E & T. (CH)54/fl57 dated September 27, 1954, issue<l und1•r s.6(2) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act (Act 16 of 1948), hereinafter cal1od the "Act", on unmanufactured tobacco becomes effective as from the beginning of the financial year, I proceed to give my reasons for the same. The period in regard to which tho disputed amount of sales tax is sought to be levied was from April I, 1954 to September 2i, 1954.

Previous to the issuing of the notific.a.tion of September 27, 1954, tho Punjab Government issued a notification required under a.6(2) of the Act for the purpose of information of persons likely to be affected thereby 1961 M/a. Mathra Prashad v State of Punjab Kapur J. (I) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS S27 and to give them an opportunity to file any objec tions or suggestions in regard to the same. A press note was issued on August 4, 1954 stating tha.t no sales tax will be leviable on manufactured tobacco for the financial year 1954-55. In order to resolve the controversy as to w!iether the exemption is effective from the commencement of the financial year or from the date of the noti· fication it is necessary to refer to the scheme of the Act and the rules made thereunder. The East Punjab General Sales Tax Act (Act 46 of 1948) as amended, made provision for the levy of general sales tax on the sale of goods in the Punjab and repealed the General Sales 'l'ax Act of 1941.

Section 2 of the Act gives definitions and cl. (d) ,defines a "dealer" as a person ............... engaged In cl. ( i) business of selling or supplying goods. "Turnover" was defined to include- "the aggregate of the amount of a sale and parts of the sale actually made by any dealer during the given period less any sum allowed as cash discount according to ordinary trade practice ......... " Sections 4 and 5 are the charging sections, the former makes the tax leviable prospectively and the latter prescribes the rate of taoc; The relevant portions of these sections when quoted are as follows: S.4( I) "Subject to the provisions of sections 5 and 6, every dealer except one dealing exclusively in goods declared tax-free under section 6 whose gross turnover during the · year imme· diately preceding the commencement. of this Act exceeded the taxable quantum shall be liable to pay tax under this Act on all sales effected after the coming into force of this Act.

(2) Every dealer to whom sub-section (I) does not apply or who does not deal exclusively in 1961 l1ljs. Matltra P,ashad '· Stal«f P1D1job Kapur J. 928 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. goods dedared to he tax-free under section 6 shall be liable to pay tax under this Act fJn the expiry of 30 days after tho date whil'h his tnxable !!ross quantum. " first exceeds turnover "Taxable quantum" mentioned in Rub.section (2) is defined in sub.section (5) of s. 4. ThnR a <lPakr is liable to salrs tax if his ~ales in tho y<'a.r pr<'~rrling the commoncemrnt of the Act are moro than tlw taxabli> quantum (a. 4.(1) ) or snbsequrntlv hecomos so during any year. S. 5.(1\ "Subject, to the provisions of this Act, there ~hall be lPvicd on the ta.xahle turnover every vear of a dealer a tax at such rates not Pxce~dina two pice in a rupee as the State Government may by notification direct: Provided that Government may by noti fic.a.tion in the Official Gazette declare that in reRpPct of any goods or cln.ss of goods the dealer may pay such lump-sum by way of composition of the tnx payable under this Act as the Go\•ernment may notify from time to time.

(2) In this Act th'l expression "taxable turnover" means that part of a dealer's groRs turnover during any period which remains after deduc ting therefrom. (a) bis turnover during that period on the sale 0f goods declared tax-free (i) under section 6; (ii) .................................................. . " ( ''') 111 ....••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••• Section 6 which makes provision for giving exemp tion is as follows:- S.6( l) "No tax sh111l be payable under this aot on the sale of goods Rpecified in the first column ., ' ' • (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 929 of the Schedule subject to the conditions and exceptions, if any, set out in the correspond ing entry in the Hecond column thereof, and no deiilcr 'shall char)(e Sales Tax on the sale of goods whfoh 1ire declared tax-free from time to . time undn this section. 1961 J\!/s, J\!athra Prashad v. State of Punjab Kapur J . > • (2) The State Government, after giving by notifi cation not kss than three months' notice of its intention so to do, may by like notification add to or delete from the Schedule and thereupon the Schedule shall be deemed to he am~nded accordingly.

" Section 10 deals with payment of taxes otnd returns. Clause (1) of s. IO provides:- S.10 (1) "Tax payable under this Act shall be paid in the manner hereinafter provided at such interv1t!s as may be prescribed. " • > : returns Section 11 is the section dealing with assessments. It provides that if the Assessing Authority is satis· fied that furnished are correct and complete he shall assess the amount of tax due and if he is not so sntisfied he can require the produc tion of evidence which may be necessary and provi sion is also, made for default in carrying out the notice issn<'d. Seetion 27 giveR the Government the power to make ru !es. The relevant portions of this section are clauses (h) and (i) which were as follows:- (h) "the return to be furnished under sub-section (3) of section IO, and dates by which and the authority to which, such returns shall be furnished; the date by which returns for any period are the procedure to be to be followed for assessment under section 11." furnished and (i) rule making power rules have been Under the the Punjab Government and reference framed by may be made to Rules 20 and 23.

Under the 19111 Jiffs. Mat/pa Prashad v, Slalt of Punjab Kopu' J: 930 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP· former rule every regis!Rred dealer is required to furnish returns in Form ST-VITI or ST-XXIII if so thirty days from the permitted quarterly within the latter the expiry of each quarter. Under ABBessing Authority is iiivPn the power to tax the returns to be made monthly in the case of a dealer who would otherwise be required to furnish them quarterly or annually. 111 It was argued that the tax under s.5 was a. yearly tax and therefore whenever the exemption may be given during a. financial year the effect of the exemp tion will become operative as from the bPginning of the financial year and emphasis was laid on the words "there aha.II be levied on the taxable turnover everv year of a dealer a. tax ...... " The argument was that it was a yearly tax on the turnover and not that every year a. tax was to be levied on the taxable turnover i. e. aggregate of the sales made during a given period.

It was also argued that if the exem p tion of the turnover was to operate for the quarter in which the exemption was notified, the conse- quence will be absurd as those who pay the tax on quarterly returns or monthly returns will not be able to get the advantage of the exemption whereas those who pay on yearly returns will be so entitled. that the effect of the collection of the words in s. 5 and particularly of levied on the taxable turnover the words "shall be every year ............ a tax'' is what was argued by tax like the the appellants income tax. Section 6 which provides for exemp tion specifically envisages the declaration fr<>m time to time of exemption of goo·ls which a.re to bo tax- free. The use of the words "tax-free from time to time", in my opinion, means that the exemption time during the year but it may be given at any that the exemption will operate does not suggest from the beginning of the year and not from the time that the exemption is 'liven.

If this were not so then the imposition of sales tax by excluding an I a.m unable to agree i.e. it was a. yearly • ' I 1961 M/s. Mothra Prashad v. State of P@Jab Kapur J. (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 931 from tax from the schedule say article exempt render about the end of the financial year would liable to sales tax for the whole' year the dealer even though he may not have collected any sales tax from his customers which under the law he would be entitled to do if the article is not in the schedule. It will be an imposition which is not envi Haged by the general scheme of ~he Sales Tax Act the tax is exigible on taxable turnover in because every return made monthly or quarterly or yearly as the case may be. It appears that in the definition of the word that reason "turnover" the legislature has chosen the word "during the given period" i.e. the period for which the tax is leviable and is levied.

Similarly in sub (2) of s. 5 where sales tax is levied on the section turnover of a dealer the use of the word taxable "during any period" is again repeated and in cl. (a) of that section reference is made to deduction from his turnover during that period of the sale of goods declared tax-free under s. 6 and that is for a good reason because s. 6 itself mentions the declaration of tax-free goods from time to time indicating that whenever during the year or at any time during the year when goods are notified to be tax-free. it is That the intention of the legislature waa to give exemption from the date of the notification or such date as is mentioned in the notification is further supported by the provisions of ss. IO and ll of the Act. Under s. IO a dealer ma.y be required to furnish his return at such intervals as may be prescribed and when he makes a return it must necessarily be of the goods on which during that period sales tax was exigible.

Under sub-s.(4) of s.10 the dealer is required to pay into the Government treasury the full amount of tax according to his return. Under s. II the assessment of the tax either on the acceptance of the return or after pro duction of such evidence as may be required is to be made. From the provisions of s. 11, it doe1 1961 JI/ s. lrI athra Prashad v. State •f Punjab - KapurJ: • 932 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [l952J SUPP. -----·--· ---- This is further clear from not appear that returns are to be scrutinised at the end of the year like in income tax C'aseR a nil assessment made on the income of the year preced ing the assessment year. It is to be made in regard to each return whenever accoriling to the mlPs -the return has to be and is made. The tax is also paid for that period i.e. on the taxable turn over for the period for which the return is madA and which becomes the subject matter -of Msessment. When the assessment has been made and th" tax assessed is paid the asses>ment for that neriod is completed and all proceedings and liabilities and subjected to what is·stated _aA _to escaped periods. the rules which in regard to registration and have been made furnishing of returns.

In the registration certi ficate it has to be mentioned as to what goods are free of fax. Returns a.re required to bP made in the Forms which are given i.e. Form VIII or Form XXIII. A return under Form VIII may be monthly, quarterly or yearly. A return to be made also provides for mentioning the turnover . of tax-free rmods and goods which are exempted from sales tax, If the contention of the appellants is cor rect, then after all the returns have be•>n filed, the .- amount of sales tax according to the returns assessed and payments made, there will have to be proceedings for reassessment, remission or refund as the case may be in regard to those periods, if any goods are added to the schedule exempting them from sales tax after the assessment or any goods are deleted from the schedule thns making them liable for sales tax and that will be for th" periods of which the assessment had already been completed and finished.

That does not seem to be the scheme of the Act. It does not envisage reassessment for the purpose of refunding the tax assessed and paid on articles which were as~essablc at the time the assessment was made bnt became exempt later nor is it envisaged in tbe case of • • • ' • , 1961 M/s. Mathra l'rashad "· Stat1 of Punjab Kapur J. - (I) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 933 the schedule. Section articles excluded from 11(6) which deals with reassessments at the relevant time provided : " If upon informa.tion which has come into his possession the Assessing Authorit,i: satisfied. that any dealer has been liaOle to pay tax under this Act in respect of any period has failed to apply for registration, the Assessing Authority shall .......... assess to the best of his judgment the amount of tax ............ due from the dealer. " in my opinion, show The scheme of the Act and the rules made there· under do not, that the exemption becomes operative for the whole year the notification of whenever during exemption is issued even though it may be on the last day of the financial year. the year ..,. I would therefore dismiss this appeal wi~h costs.