ASIT BARAN GHOSH Vs. SALES TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties at length.

(2.) THIS is an application filed by the petitioner against a judgment dated July 18, 2008 See page 124 Supra passed by the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal in Case No. RN 387 of 2007.

(3.) THE other point which has been tried to be urged before us is Sub -rule (2) of Rule 6 which has been framed by the State authorities under Section 114 of the said VAT Act should be declared as ultra vires since according to the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner the said Rule 6(2) is in violation of the objects and reasons from which the Act has been enacted by the legislators. It appears that the question of declaring the rule or section is whether it comes within the purview of the test already stated by the apex court in their decisions. It appears from a decision Chaudhury Iron Co. (P.) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal reported in : [1974] 34 STC 21 (Cal), the rule -making power which has been given to the State Government to make Rules under the Act in question, under Section 114 of the VAT Act, the said Government may by a notification make Rules with prospective or retrospective effect for carrying out the purposes of the Act in question. Now let us see the motive of the legislators for enacting the value added tax which would be amply dear from the Act in question and it appears from the objects and reasons which has to be sought to be raised before us by the learned Counsel has been specifically stated that "whereas it is expedient to provide for the levy of tax on sale of goods in West Bengal on the basis of value added to such goods at each stage of sale of such goods on purchases of certain goods in West Bengal in specified circumstances and to provide for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto".