Precedents

Supreme Court

— Correctness of decisions of Supreme Court, held, not subject to adjudgment by High Court — Observations of High Court to the effect that decisions in Steel Authority of India Ltd., (2000) 3 SCC 200 and Nathpa Jhakri Joint Venture, (2000) 3 SCC 319 had not considered several larger Benches' decisions, held, manifested an inappropriate approach — Moreover, the said observations of High Court, were factually wrong — High Court's view that in the said cases Supreme Court should have read down the provisions impugned therein and upheld them, held, fallacious — Further held, rule of reading down applies only where two views are possible as to the meaning of the statutory language and in the said two cases that was not the position, (2006) 6 SCC 522-A

Sales Tax

Inter-State sale

— Provision in State Act (U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, S. 8-E in this case) requiring agents of Ex-State dealers to deduct tax at the time of making purchase — Validity of such provision and propriety of the mode of determination thereof by High Court in the present case — Assessee agents purchasing certain goods on behalf of Ex-State dealers and dispatching the same to them — Assessee challenging the validity of that provision on the grounds that: (i) the transaction in question was inter-State in character and therefore it was beyond the legislative competence of the State to provide for deduction of tax in respect thereof, and (ii) the sellers of the particular goods in question did not fall within the statutory definition of <169>dealer<170> — Held, the nature of the transaction could not be decided on the basis of provisions of the taxing statute, it was rather to be factually examined — Hence, leaving open the question of validity of the said provision but observing that the said provision would be subject to the observations made in the earlier decisions to the effect that the State Legislature could not make law levying sales tax on inter-State sales, TTO directed to deal with the reply filed by the assessee in accordance with law — Detailed directions given in that regard, (2006) 6 SCC 522-B

Sales Tax

Collection of tax

— Collection of tax from a person not liable to pay tax at all — Impropriety of — Observations made in earlier decisions reiterated to the effect that the possible contingency of refund in future would not make the original levy in such a case valid — Further observed that if the principles indicated in those cases had been followed by the legislature, large number of unnecessary litigations could have been avoided, (2006) 6 SCC 522-C