Bharat Oil Mills and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....interpretation is relevant only when two views are possible. employee's provident funds & miscellaneous provisions act, 1952 [c.a. no. 19/1952] -- section 2(b): [dr. arijit pasayat & p. sathasivam, jj] basic wages held, the term basic wages in section 2 (b) does not include leave encashment. the term basic wage which includes all emoluments which are earned by an employee while on duty or on leave or on holidays with wages in accordance with the terms of the contract of employment can only mean weekly holidays, national holidays and festival holidays etc. in many cases the employee do not take leave and encash it at the time of retirement or same is encashed after his death which can be said to be uncertainties and contingencies. though provisions have been made for the employer for such contingencies unless the contingency of encashing the leave is there, the question of actual payment to the workman does not take place. the amount of contribution cannot be based on different contingencies and uncertainties. the test is one of universality. in the case of encashment of leave the option may be available to all the employees but some may avail and some may not avail. that does..........tax act, 1947, on. september 21, 1951, in form i. in the registration certificate, it was not stated that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of oil from the oil-seeds to be purchased by them, as a result thereof, they were liable to pay purchase tax on the oil-seeds purchased by them. 3. after 23 years, i.e. on may 6, 1974, the appellants applied for correcting their certificate and to include the said activity in their certificate. the certificate was amended but with prospective effect only. the appellants wanted the correction to be made with retrospective effect from the year 1951. this plea was rejected by the commissioner, sales tax, in revision, and by the high court in writ petition. 4. we see no justification for the appellants to keep quiet for a period of 23 years and then come forward with an application for correction with retrospective effect from 1951. the appellants cannot plead ignorance of non-inclusion of oil-seeds for the purpose of extracting oil there from in their certificate for such a long period. the counsel for the appellants argues that in their application for registration made in the year 1951, they had asked the oil-seeds to be.....

Judgment:

ORDER

1. We see absolutely no substance in this appeal.

2. The appellants applied for registration as a dealer under the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, on. September 21, 1951, in form I. In the registration certificate, it was not stated that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of oil from the oil-seeds to be purchased by them, As a result thereof, they were liable to pay purchase tax on the oil-seeds purchased by them.

3. After 23 years, i.e. on May 6, 1974, the appellants applied for correcting their certificate and to include the said activity in their certificate. The certificate was amended but with prospective effect only. The appellants wanted the correction to be made with retrospective effect from the year 1951. This plea was rejected by the Commissioner, Sales Tax, in revision, and by the High Court in writ petition.

4. We see no justification for the appellants to keep quiet for a period of 23 years and then come forward with an application for correction with retrospective effect from 1951. The appellants cannot plead ignorance of non-inclusion of oil-seeds for the purpose of extracting oil there from in their certificate for such a long period. The counsel for the appellants argues that in their application for registration made in the year 1951, they had asked the oil-seeds to be entered in their certificate. Assuming that it is so, it must be held, in the light of the above conduct that they have abandoned the said claim. They accepted the certificate as issued and acted upon it for a period of 23 years. They cannot now seek retrospective correction covering such a long period.

5. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed. No costs.