AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Report No. 30

114. Khosla's case inconsistent with previous decisions.-For the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, I am of the opinion that the present decision in Khosla's case is not consistent with the previous decisions of the Supreme Court, which I have discussed above. In particular, the decision goes beyond the decisions of the Supreme Court in the two Travancore cases and is likely to create uncertainty in the law. What, then, is the remedy that I can suggest?

Before legislation can be thought of, what I think might be a proper step in the first instance is for the Government to approach the Supreme Court and persuade it to reconsider the present decision in some other matter where the same questions may again come up before it for decision. I have no doubt such matters may soon come up, if not they are already pending, before the Supreme Court. I have made this somewhat qualified suggestion, and also with some hesitation, for the reason which I am presently explaining in the following paragraphs:-

115. If the Legislature while enacting section 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act only accepted the principles of law which were laid down by the Supreme Court in the two Travancore cases and which were recommended by the Law Commission in its Second Report, in my opinion, the section should not be what it is today. At present the section reads "if the sale or purchase occasions such expor." and "if the sale or purchase occasions such import.". If only the Travancore cases were to be followed and accepted, it would be only the sale occasioning the export and only the purchase occasioning the import.



Section 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Taxation by the States of Sales in the Course of Import Back




Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys