BALIA, J. - (1.) IN these three writ petitions, though multiple reliefs have been sought including declaration of `turn- over tax' imposed by the State by inserting Sec. 13-A in the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 as ultra vires and unconstitutional but at the time of hearing, taking notice of the fact that competence of the State legislature to levy turn over tax has been upheld by the Supreme Entry 54 of List II (State List) in Schedule VII of the Constitution as an additional tax on sale or purchase of goods, the contentions have been confined to this extent that the impugned provisions are repugnant to Central Sales Tax Act because they do not restrict the `levy of tax' in the case of `turn over' relating to sale or purchase of goods which have been declared under Sec. 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act as of special importance in the course of interstate trade and commerce to the extent of rate until prescribed under Sec. 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act in aggregate, therefore, it can be subjected to tax at a rate in excess of the limit prescribed under Sec. 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
(2.) IN this connection, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners placed reliance on clause (3) of Art. 286 of the Constitution of INdia which leaves it for the Parliament alone to prescribe maximum rate of tax at which sale or purchase of goods declared to be of special importance in the course of interstate trade and commerce. The second contention raised in connection with the levy of `turn-over tax' is that while under Sec. 3 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994, a Dealer is not liable to be registered who is exclusively Dealer in tax-paid goods unless `turn-over' exceeds Rs. 16 lacs, yet is makes a Dealer liable to registration because of Sec. 13-A on having a `turn-over' of Rs. 3 lacs only notwithstanding that the entire `turn-over' is of tax-paid goods which is otherwise not subjected to tax in the hands of the Dealer who purchases such goods on payment of tax and thereafter enters into further transactions of sale of goods as no tax on such sales is being imposable on the multiple point and, therefore, these two provisions are incongruous. As a limb of this contention, this was also contended that as no tax is payable in respect of goods purchased by registered Dealer on payment of tax from another registered dealer, such `turn-over' over or transactions is also made subject to `turn- over tax' under Sec. 13-A. It is urged that if the transaction is otherwise exempt from payment of tax, it cannot be made subject matter of `turn-over tax' which is goods. Learned counsel for the petitioners also invited our attention to a policy circular dated 12. 9. 2000 issued by the Commercial Taxes Department, Govt. of Rajasthan issuing guidelines to the effect that provisions of Sec. 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act are not applicable to `turn over tax. ' The Circular dated 12. 9. 2000 reads as under: Varnacular Text
(3.) WHILE not seriously joining the issue that looking to the nature of `turn-over' tax which has been declared by the Supreme Court as tax on sale or purchase of goods under Entry 54 of List- II of Schedule-VII of the Constitution and the provisions contained in Art. 286 (3) of the Constitution that any State legislation under Entry 54 of List-II of Schedule VII of the Constitution is subject to the limitations envisaged under Art. 286 (3) of the Constitution of India, it has been contended by the learned Additional Advocate General for the State that there is no real apprehension that while making assessment of `turn-over' tax, the Assessing Officer would be levying tax in contravention of the provisions of Sec. 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 in respect of the `turn-over' falling under that clause. The learned Advocate General has further contended that so far as the second contention of the petitioners is concerned ought not to be accepted because there is no such limit in any of the provisions of the Constitution of India, which prescribes levy on flat rate or prohibits imposition of tax on multiple points. It is a matter of legislative policy spelt through the relevant provisions of the law and if a particular part of the levy has not been made subject of some condition of which the other part of the levy under the same legislative entry has been made, it cannot be legitimately urged that there is any incongruity between Sec. 3 of the Act of 1994 and Sec. 13-A of that Act nor does it violates any provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. We should take notice of Article 286 of the Constitution of India, which reads as under: ``art. 286 (1) No law of a State shall impose, or authorise the imposition of, a tax on the sale of purchase of goods when such sale or purchase takes place. (a) outside the State; or (b) in the course of import of the goods into, or export of the goods out of the territory of India. (2) Parliament may by law formulate principles for determining when a sale or purchase of goods takes place in any of the ways mentioned in clause (1 ). (3) Any law of a State shall, insofar as it imposes, or authorises the imposition of,- (a) a tax on the sale or purchase of goods declared by Parliament by law to be of special importance in inter-state trade or commerce; or (b) a tax on the sale or purchase of gods, being a tax of the nature referred to in sub-clause (b), sub-clause (c) or sub-clause (c) or sub-clause (d) of clause (29-A) of Article 366, be subject to such restrictions and conditions in regard to the system of levy, rates and other incidents of tax as Parliament may by law specify. '' ;