1. Challenge to the validity of Section 5-A of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, concerning a surcharge on total sales tax payable. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 805
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. P. Bharucha, V. N. Khare
ARJUN FLOUR MILLS, APPELLANTS
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS.
Civil Appeals No. 8763 of 1994 with No. 8909 of 1994,
decided on August 13, 1998.
Important Points
Interpretation of constitutional provisions related to taxation and the competence of the State Legislature in imposing surcharges.
Subject
Taxation Law - Constitutional Interpretation
Act Referred
Headnote
Validity of Section 5-A of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 - Surcharge - Interpretation of constitutional provisions
Fact of the Case:
The appeals challenged the validity of Section 5-A of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, which imposes a surcharge on the total amount of sales tax payable by a dealer.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was a conflict in the interpretation of constitutional provisions related to taxation, as seen in previous judgments.
Issues: The main issue was the interpretation of whether the surcharge imposed by Section 5-A was within the competence of the State Legislature, based on conflicting interpretations in previous judgments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided to refer the appeals for hearing by a larger Bench due to the conflicting views on the nature of the surcharge and its relation to constitutional provisions.
Final Decision: The papers were to be placed before the Honble the Chief Justice for appropriate directions.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a surcharge on sales tax is relatable to Entry 54 of List II of the VIIth Schedule of the Constitution. (Para 1 )
3. Conflict exists between precedents regarding whether a surcharge partakes of the nature of sales tax or constitutes a tax on the tax or royalty. (Para 1 )
4. Appeals referred to a larger Bench for hearing. (Para 1 , 2 )
5. Why was the challenge to Section 5-A of the Orissa Sales Tax Act referred to a larger Bench?
The court identified a conflict between precedents regarding whether a surcharge on sales tax is relatable to Entry 54 of List II of the VIIth Schedule or if a cess on royalty is a tax on the royalty itself rather than a tax on land. (Para 1 )
ORDER
1. It becomes necessary to refer these appeals for hearing by a larger Bench in the following circumstances :
They challenge the validity of Section 5-A of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, which imposes a surcharge on the total amount of sales tax payable by a dealer. A similar provision was upheld by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court in Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar [(1983) 4 SCC 45 : 1983 SCC (Tax) 248] but it is pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants, with some justification, that the judgment proceeded upon a concession that the provision was relatable to Entry 54 of List II of the VIIth Schedule of the Constitution. The judgment does, however, add that the surcharge partook of the nature of sales tax and, therefore, was within the competence of the State Legislature. Learned counsel for the appellants drew our attention to the judgment of a Bench of seven learned Judges of this Court in India Cement Ltd. v. State of T.N. [(1990) 1 SCC 12] where the observations, particularly in para 20, would seem to take a very different view; a cess on the royalty payable for excavation of land was held to be, not a tax on land, but on the royalty, which was land revenue.
2. The papers shall be placed before the Honble the Chief Justice for appropriate directions.
Court Masters.
