THE STATE OF TRIPURA & ANR versus CHANDAN DEB & ORS.
[2023] 3 S.C.R. 1134, Supreme Court of India, 2023
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Facts
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1134
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
   [2023] 3 S.C.R. 1134
1134
THE STATE OF TRIPURA & ANR.
v.
CHANDAN DEB & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6500 of 2008)
MARCH 24, 2023
[M. R. SHAH AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 : ss. 3A, 3AA – Tripura Sales Tax
Rules, 1976 – r. 3A(2) – Sub-rule (2) of the r. 3A, if ultra vires to the
provisions of the TST Act – On facts, issuance of work order for
hiring vehicles by ONGC, GAIL, FCI in favour of writ petitioners-
suppliers of the vehicle – Writ petitioners challenging vires of r.
3A(2) and for refund of the amount so deducted as sales tax on
transfer of the right to use goods – Single Judge held r.3A(2) as
ultra vires the TST Act which was upheld by the Division Bench –
Single Bench also held that suppliers are liable to pay sales tax u/s.
3AA but the same was set aside by the Division Bench – On appeal,
held: On combine reading of s. 3 r/w s.2(b) & 2(g), any transfer of
the right to use any goods (including the vehicles) shall be deemed
to a ‘sale’ and the transferor of the right to use any goods/vehicles
can be said to be a dealer and thus, liable to pay the tax at the rate
of 4% on any transfer of the right to use any goods as per proviso
to s. 3(1) – Liability to pay the tax at the rate of 4% on any transfer
of right to use any goods shall be u/s. 3(1) – r. 3A(2) provides only
for a machinery/mechanism where the person buying the goods is
required to deduct the tax at source and deposits the same
with the
Revenue – It does not in any manner change the chargeability of
the tax or liability of the tax which is u/s. 3(1) r/w s. 2(b) & 2(g) –
Thus, High Court erred in declaring r. 3A(2) ultra vires to TST Act
and in quashing and setting aside the memorandum issued in 1992
by the State Government requiring the hirers-ONGC and GAIL to
deduct 4% tax at source u/s. 3A out of the respective bills of the
suppliers of the vehicles.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 On combine reading of Section 3 read with
Section 2(b) & 2(g) of the Tripura Sales Tax Act any transfer of
the right to use any goods (including the vehicles) shall be
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1135
deemed to a ‘sale’ and the transferor of the right to use any goods/
vehicles can be said to be a dealer and therefore liable to pay the
tax at the rate of 4% on any transfer of the right to use any goods
as per proviso to Section 3(1). Therefore, the liability to pay the
tax at the rate of 4% on any transfer of right to use any goods
shall be under Section 3(1). Therefore, the submissions on behalf
of the respondents-suppliers/transferers that as there is no sale
or transfer of the goods and that they are not registered with the
TST Act and therefore, the liability to pay the tax at 4% does not
arise cannot be accepted. The liability to pay the tax shall be on
the transferer who transfers the right to use any goods as per
proviso to Section 3(1) read with Section 2(b) and 2(g) of the TST
Act. [Para 8.3][1148-A-D]
1.2. As regards, the question whether Rule 3A(2) and the
memorandum issued by the Government to deduct the tax at 4%
and the bills to be paid to the transferers can be said to be ultra
vires to TST Act, it appears that the High Court held the said
provision as ultra vires by observing that there is no such
provision for tax deduction at source under the TST Act and thus,
the Rule cannot go beyond the Act. The said view taken by the
High Court is absolutely fallacious. Rule 3A(2) can be said to be
a recovery machinery/mechanism. Rule 3A(2) provide only for a
machinery/mechanism where the person buying the goods is
required to deduct the tax at
source and deposits the same with
the Revenue. It does not in any manner change the chargeability
of the tax or liability of the tax which is u/s.3(1) read with s.2(b) &
2(g) of the Act. [Para 9][1148-E-G]
1.3. The rules are framed in exercise of Rule-making power
under Section 44 of the Act and in that view of the matter and as
the liability to pay the tax on transfer of right to use the goods
shall still be continued under proviso to Section 3(1), mere
providing for mode of recovery and/or providing for machinery/
mechanism to recover the tax to be paid by the transferer/supplier
from the person buying the goods deducting the tax at source
and depositing the same with the Revenue cannot be said to be
ultra vires to TST Act and the Rules as observed and held by the
High Court. Rule 3A(2) does not in any manner change the
THE STATE OF TRIPURA & ANR. v. CHANDAN DEB & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1136
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
chargeability of the tax or liability to pay the tax. Therefore, the
High Court has erred in misinterpreting Rule 3A(2) of the TST
Rules and in declaring Rule 3A(2) of the TST Rules ultra vires to
TST Act. The High Court has materially erred in quashing and
setting aside the memorandum issued by the State Government
requiring the hirers namely the ONGC and the GAIL to deduct
an amount equivalent to 4% out of the respective bills of the
suppliers of the vehicles. Thus, the impugned common judgment
and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court and
that of the common judgment and order passed by the Single
Judge declaring rule 3A(2) as utra vires to the Tripura Sales Tax
Act, 1976 and quashing and setting aside the memorandum of
1992 are quashed and set aside. [Para 10][1148-H; 1149-A-E]
PILCOM vs. CIT, (2020) 19 SCC 409; CIT vs. Eli Lilly
& Co. (India) (P) Ltd., (2009) 15 SCC 1 : [2009] 5
SCR 20; CCE & Customs vs. Larsen & Toubro Ltd.,
(2016) 1 SCC 170 : [2015] 8 SCR 1046 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2020) 19 SCC 409
referred to
Para 4.9
[2009] 5 SCR 20
referred to
Para 4.10
[2015] 8 SCR 1046
referred to
Para 4.11
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.6500
of 2008.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.08.2007 of the High Court
of Gauhati at Agarthala in WA No.149 of 2001.
With
Civil Appeal Nos.6502, 6501 of 2008, 3985, 3984 of 2009 And
5877 of 2022
Ms. Madhavi Diwan, ASG, Shuvodeep Roy, Arnav
Singh Deo,
Sahil Moga, Vishesh Kalra, Ms. Nidhi Khanna, Ms. Subha Yadav, Advs.
for the Appellants.
Ahanthem Henry, Vivek Kumar, Ms. Priyanka, Rajiv Mehta, T.
V. Ratnam, Abhay Kumar, Shagun Ruhil, Rajat Khatri, Vishal Nautiyal,
Somiran Sharma, Advs. for the Respondents.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1137
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common
judgment and order dated 29.08.2007 passed by the Gauhati High Court
by which the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the writ
appeals preferred by the State of Tripura which were against the
judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge declaring Rule
3A(2) of the Tripura Sales Tax Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as
the ‘TST Rules’) as ultra vires to the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘TST Act’) and partly allowing the appeals
preferred by the original writ petitioners quashing and setting aside that
part of the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge by
which it was held that the original writ petitioners were liable under
Section 3AA of the TST Act, the State of Tripura has preferred the
present appeals.
2. That the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 was enacted in the year
1976 containing provisions for the levy of tax on sale on certain goods in
Tripura. Section 3A provided for tax on transfer of property in goods
involved in execution of works contract. Section 3AA provided for
deduction of tax at the time of payment. Section 44 provided for power
to make Rules. In exercise of the Rule making power under Section 44
of the TST Act, the Tripura Sales Tax Rules, 1976 came to be enacted.
Rule 3A(2) provided for deduction of tax at source equal to 4% on
transfer of rights to
use goods.
2.1 The Revenue Department of the State of Tripura issued
memorandum in the year 1992 for deduction of 4% tax at source under
Section 3A of the TST Act.
2.2 Tender notices were issued by the ONGC, Gas Authority of
India Ltd., FCI for hiring vehicles. Work orders were issued in favour of
the original writ petitioners. Agreements were entered into between the
original writ petitioners and GAIL, ONGC, FCI etc. respectively.
2.3 The original writ petitioners – suppliers of the vehicles filed
the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge challenging the vires
of Rule 3A(2) of the TST Rules and also for refund of the amount so
deducted on the ground that there is no charging provision under the
TST Act for levy of sales tax on transfer of the right to use goods and,
hence, Rule 3A of the TST Rules, which makes it mandatory for persons,
THE STATE OF TRIPURA & ANR. v. CHANDAN DEB & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1138
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
responsible for making payment of the bills of the transferer of the right
to use goods, to deduct, at source, sales tax at a flat rate of 4% is ultra
vires the TST Act. One another ground of challenge to Rule 3A was
that Rule 3A suffers from absence of delegation of power and, hence
the memorandum issued in the year 1992 is invalid and cannot be enforced.
2.4 All the writ petitions were resisted by the State contending
inter alia that the transactions involved amounted to ‘Sale’ within the
meaning of 2(g)(ii) of the TST Act and that as per the second proviso of
Section 3(i) of the TST, Tax at 4% of the valuable consideration, shall be
payable on transfer of the right to use any goods for any purpose and,
hence, Rule 3A(2), prescribed merely a mode of recovery of sales tax
which is otherwise due and payable and thus Rule 3A(2) is valid.
2.5 Learned Single Judge declared Rule 3A(2) as ultra vires the
TST Act. However, the learned Single Judge held that the suppliers are
liable to pay sales tax under Section 3AA of the TST Act. Aggrieved by
the judgment of learned Single Judge, the State preferred writ appeals
before the Division Bench of the High Court. The original writ petitioners
– suppliers also filed the writ appeals before the Division Bench aggrieved
by that part of the judgment of the learned Single Judge where it was
held that the original writ petitioners – suppliers are liable to pay sales
tax under Section
3AA of the TST Act.
2.6 The Division Bench considered the following two issues:
(i)
Whether authority vests in the Revenue Dept. to direct
deduction at Source for payment of Sales Tax from Bills of
any person who transfers right to use any goods for any
purpose?
(ii)
Whether Rule 3A(2) is a valid piece of delegated
Legislation?
2.7 During the pendency of the writ appeals, the TST Act has
been replaced by the Tripura VAT Act, 2004 w.e.f. 01.04.2004. Therefore,
as such the dispute is for the period prior to 01.04.2004.
2.8 By the impugned common judgment and order the Division
Bench of the High Court has dismissed the appeals of the State and has
allowed the appeals of the original writ petitioners – suppliers and has
held that Rule 3A(2) is ultra vires TST Rules and TST Act. The Division
Bench of the High Court has also set aside that part of the judgment of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1139
the learned Single Judge where it was held that the supplier – original
writ petitioners are liable under Section 3AA of the TST Act.
2.9 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common
judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, the
State of Tripura has preferred the present appeals.
2.10 While granting the leave this Court has framed the following
question of law:
“Whether Sub-rule (2) of the Rule 3A of the TST Rules can be
declared ultra vires being contrary to the provisions of the ‘TST
Act’, though there is express proviso in Section 3(1) for levy of
4% Sales Tax on any transfer of the right to use any goods for
any purpose?”
3. Ms. Madhavi Diwan, learned ASG and Shri Shuvodeep Roy,
learned counsel have appeared on behalf of the State of Tripura, Shri
Ahanthem Henry, learned counsel has appeared for respondent no.1 in
all the matters, Shri Somiram Sharma, learned counsel has appeared on
behalf of the ONGC and Shri Abhay Kumar, learned counsel has appeared
on behalf of the FCI.
4. Ms. Madhavi Diwan, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the
State has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of
the case and taking into consideration the relevant provisions of the TST
Act, the High Court has committed a very serious error in declaring
Rule 3A(2) of the TST Rules as ultra vires to TST Act.
4.1 It is submitted that as such Rule 3A, which provides for the
tax deduction at source, is a machinery provision
with respect to tax
leviable under the TST Act. Rule 3A(2) provides for the manner of
depositing tax in a sale transaction and does not change the person liable
to be taxed, i.e. the dealer under the TST Act or the tax liability in any
manner.
4.2 It is further submitted that the transaction of hiring of vehicles
by ONGC, GAIL and FCI falls within the definition of Sale under Section
2(g) of the TST Act and is subject to tax. It is submitted that TST Act
provides for a deemed sale where there is ‘transfer of right to use any
goods for any purpose”. It is submitted that in the subject transaction,
the right to use of car/vehicles is being transferred and therefore, the
transaction is a sale for the purposes of TST Act. Reliance is placed on
Section 2(g) of the TST Act.
THE STATE OF TRIPURA & ANR. v. CHANDAN DEB & ORS.
[M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1140
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
4.3 It is submitted that the supplier being the person making the
delivery or transfer within the meaning of Section 2(g)(ii) falls within the
definition of the term ‘Dealer’ as provided under Section 2(b) of the
TST Act. It is submitted that therefore, the supplier – original writ petitioner
would fall within the definition of ‘Dealer’ as he is a person ‘selling’
taxable goods in terms of the TST Act by transferring the right to use
the goods in question.
4.4 It is further submitted by Ms. Diwan, learned ASG that Section
3(1) is the charging section under the TST Act, which provides for
imposition of tax and makes the dealer liable for payment of the same.
4.5 It is submitted that the TST Act provides for delegated
legislation and rule making power is provided under Section 44 of the
TST Rules.
4.6 It is submitted that Rule making power under Rule 44 is inclusive
and wide enough to cover the procedure for recovery including tax
deduction at source. It is submitted that therefore Rule 3A(2) which
provides for tax deduction at source at the hands of the transferee of the
right to use goods is a machinery provision which can be provided in the
Rules. It is submitted that further, all rules framed in furtherance of
Section 44 are placed before the state legislature.
4.7 It is further submitted that the impugned Rule 3A(2) does not
in any manner change the liability to pay the tax from the dealer and the
dealer continues
to remain liable to pay the tax.
4.8 It is submitted that thus Rule 3A(2) provides is only for a
machinery/mechanism where the person buying the goods deducts tax
at source and deposits the same with the Revenue. It is submitted that it
does not in any manner change the chargeability of tax or liability to pay
the tax. It is submitted that therefore, the provisions relating to tax
deduction at source are machinery provisions. Being a machinery
provision, the same can be provided in rules.
4.9 It is submitted that even the tax deducted at source is neither
the final payment of tax nor assessment of tax. It is submitted that in the
present case, the payment and assessment of tax continues to be of the
dealer. Reliance is placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of
PILCOM vs. CIT, (2020) 19 SCC 409 (paragraphs 36 to 38).
4.10 Ms. Madhavi Diwan, learned ASG has further submitted
that in the case of CIT vs. Eli Lilly & Co. (India) (P) Ltd., (2009) 15
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1141
SCC 1, this Court has been pleased to consider the issue whether
provisions pertaining to deduction of tax at source are independent of
charging provisions on the premise that the same is only a machinery
provision.
4.11 Ms. Diwan, learned ASG has further submitted that in the
present case the TST Act and the Rules clearly fulfil all the requirements
for a valid taxing statute and provide for all components required for a
taxing statute. It is submitted that as observed and held by this Court in
the case of CCE & Customs vs. Larsen & Toubro Ltd., (2016) 1
SCC 170 there shall be four components for a valid levy of tax namely
(i)
character of the imposition known by its nature which
prescribed the taxable event attracting the levy;
(ii)
a clear indication of the person on whom the levy is imposed
and who is obliged to pay the tax;
(iii)
the rate at which the tax is imposed and;
(iv)
the measure or value to which the rate will be applied for
computing the tax liability.
It is submitted that in the present case all those components for a
valid taxing statute are provided under the TST Act and the TST Rules.
4.12 It is further submitted that there is no change in chargeability
of the Tax by introduction of Rule 3A(2) nor is a new levy created and
Rule 3A(2) only provides for the mechanism of tax deduction at source
and therefore, Rule 3A(2) cannot be said to be ultra vires to TST Act
and TST Rules as observed and held by the High Court.
Making above
submissions it is prayed to allow the present appeals.
5. All these appeals are opposed by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respective respondent no.1 – original writ petitioners –
suppliers. It is vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances
of the case, the Division Bench of the High Court has not committed
any error in declaring Rule 3A(2) of the TST Rules as ultra vires to TST
Act and the TST Rules.
5.1 It is submitted that as such the learned Single Judge allowed
the writ petitions and held sub-rule 2 of Section 3A providing for sales
tax deduction @ 4% at source to be ultra vires to TST Act and set aside
the memorandum issued by the State Government providing for deduction
THE STATE OF TRIPURA & ANR. v. CHANDAN DEB & ORS.
[M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1142
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
of sales tax while making payment of bill amounts of the suppliers of the
vehicles by the companies. However, the learned Single Judge held that
the sales tax liability of the parties who had given vehicles on hire will
continue because of Section 3AA of the TST Act. It is submitted that
the Division Bench of the High Court has rightly confirmed the judgment
and order passed by the learned Single Judge declaring Rule 3A(2) of
the TST Rules ultra vires, and has also rightly set aside the observations
and the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge that still the sales
tax liability of the parties who had given vehicles on hire will continue
because of Section 3AA of the TST Act. It is submitted that the Division
Bench of the High Court has rightly corrected the view taken by the
learned Single Judge on applicability of Section 3AA of the TST Act.
5.2 It is further submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondents – suppliers that the Division Bench of the High Court
in the impugned judgment and order has also rightly considered and held
that the sales tax can be levied on sale of taxable goods and that the
liability to pay the sales tax is of a registered dealer under the Act and
any person cannot be made liable to pay sales tax as was done by the
State Government under sub-rule 2 of Rule 3A of the TST Rules. It is
submitted that in sub-rule 2 the requirement is deduction of sales tax
while
making payment to any person who has done transfer of right to
use any goods for any purpose but the provisions of the TST Act provide
for payment of sales tax by registered dealer of taxable goods and even
in case of any transfer of the right of any goods for any purpose the
sales tax can be levied/deducted if the transfer of right to use is of
taxable goods and is done by a registered dealer under the Act.
5.3 It is further noticed and held by the Division Bench of the
High Court that for imposing sales tax on works contract there is charging
section in the TST Act which is not there in case of persons involved in
transfer of right to use any goods for any purpose.
5.4 It is further submitted that the respondents herein – suppliers
who had given vehicles for use were not the dealers and were not
registered under the Sales Tax Act and had not sold any goods in course
of their work and transfer of the right to use any goods for any purpose
having been done without being a dealer registered under the TST Act
and the transfer of goods being not that of any taxable goods the deduction
of sales tax amount at 4% would not be made under the TST Act or
under the Rules and thus the deducted amount have rightly been refunded
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1143
by the State Government/Companies to most of the vehicle suppliers
during the pendency of present cases here.
5.5 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondents – suppliers that during the pendency of the
present appeals and as there was no stay against the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court, in many cases the State Government/
respective companies have refunded the amount due and payable to the
respondents herein – original suppliers and therefore now as the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court has been implemented by
the State Government/respective Companies the impugned judgment and
order passed by the High Court may not be interfered with now.
5.6 It is submitted that in absence of any charging section in the
Act for deduction/levy of sales tax on those who were giving vehicles
on hire for use of staff of companies, the same could not have been
provided under the Rules. It is submitted that as rightly observed and
held by the High Court what cannot be done under the provisions of the
Act for want of charging section in the Act cannot be done indirectly by
taking help of Rules as the Rules cannot supersede the provisions of the
Act. It is submitted that therefore sub-rule 2 of Rule 3A of the TST
Rules is rightly held to be ultra vires of TST Act.
6. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective
parties at length.
7. At the outset, it is required to be noted that
while granting the
leave to appeal this Court has framed the following question of law
which reads as under:
“Whether Sub-rule (2) of the Rule 3A of the TST Rules can be
declared ultra vires being contrary to the provisions of the ‘TST
Act’, though there is express proviso in Section 3(1) for levy of
4% Sales Tax on any transfer of the right to use any goods for
any purpose?”
8. The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petitions
preferred by the suppliers/dealers held and declared Rule 3A(2) of the
TST Rules ultra vires to TST Act and quashed and set aside the
memorandum issued by the Government providing for requirement of
deduction of sales tax at 4% while making payment to any person who
has done transfer of any right to use any goods. However, the learned
Single Judge observed and held that the sales tax liability of the parties
THE STATE OF TRIPURA & ANR. v. CHANDAN DEB & ORS.
[M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1144
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
who had given vehicles on hire will continue because of Section 3AA of
the TST Act. By the impugned judgment and order the Division Bench
of the High Court has not only upheld the judgment and order passed by
the learned Single Judge declaring Rule 3A(2) of the TST Rules ultra
vires but has also set aside the findings recorded by the learned Single
Judge that the sales tax liability of parties who had given vehicles on hire
will continue because of Section 3AA of the TST Act. Therefore, the
short question which is posed for consideration before this Court and as
per the question of law framed by this Court while granting leave to
appeal would be whether sub-rule 2 of Rule 3A of the TST Rules can be
said to be ultra vires to the provisions of the TST Act, though there is
express proviso in Section 3(1) for levy of 4% sales tax on any transfer
of the right to use any goods for any purpose?
8.1 While considering the aforesaid question the relevant provisions
of the TST Act and the TST Rules are required to be referred to which
are as under:
“2(b)”dealer” means any person who sells taxable goods
manufactured, made or processed by him in Tripura or brought by
him into Tripura from any place outside Tripura for the purpose of
sale of Tripura 1 [and includes Government and any person making
a sale under section 3A;”
“2(g)”Sale” means any transfer of property, in goods for cash or
deferred payment or other valuable
consideration, and includes—
(i) any delivery of goods on hire-purchase or any system of
payment in instalments,
(ii) any transfer of the right to use any goods for any purpose
(whether or not for a specified period) for cash, deferred
payment or other valuable consideration, and such delivery or
transfer of any goods shall be deemed to be a sale of those
goods by the person making the delivery or transfer and a
purchase of those goods by the person to whom such delivery
or transfer is made but does not include a mortgage,
hypothecation, charge or pledge;”
xxx         xxx           xxx
“3. (1) Every dealer in taxable goods shall pay a tax on his turnover
at the rate specified in column (3) of the schedule attached to this
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1145
Act : Provided that subject to the provisions of section 14 and 15
of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 the State Government may,
from time to time by notification in the Official Gazette and subject
to such conditions as it may impose, fix a higher rate of tax 3 [not
exceeding forty percent or any lower rate of tax payable under
this Act on account of the sale of any taxable goods or class of
taxable goods specified in such notification ; and thereupon the
Schedule shall be deemed to be amended accordingly:
...........................................................................................
Provided further that the rate of tax on any transfer of the right to
use any goods for any purpose (whether or not for a specified
period) shall be 4%]”
“Section 3AA. Deduction of tax at the time of payments : Any
person responsible for paying any sum to any person liable to pay
tax under section 3A of the Act, shall at the time of credit of such
sum to the account of the person or at the time of payment thereof
in cash or by issue of a cheque or draft or any other mode, such
amount towards sales tax as may be prescribed.”
xxx         xxx           xxx
“Section 44. (1) The State Government may, make rules for
carrying out the purposes of this Act.
(2) Without prejudice to the genererality of the foregoing power,
such rules may, in particular prescribe—
(a) all matters required by this Act to be prescribed ;
(b) the clauses and duties of officers appointed for
the purposes
of enforcing the provision of this Act;
(c) the procedure to be followed and the forms to be adopted in
proceedings under this Act ;
(d) the intervals at which, and the manner in which, the tax under
this Act shall be payable;
(e) the dates by which and the authority to which returns shall be
furnished ;
(f) the manner in which refunds shall be made ; (g) the fees, if
any, for petitions, certificates and other;
THE STATE OF TRIPURA & ANR. v. CHANDAN DEB & ORS.
[M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1146
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
(h) the nature of accounts to be maintained by a dealer ; and
(i) For any other matter necessary for giving effect to the purpose
of this Act.
(3) Every rule made by the State Government under this Act shall
be laid as soon as may be after it is made, before Legislative
Assembly while it is in session for a total period of not less than
fourteen days which may be comprised in one session or in two
or more successive sessions and if, before expiry of the sessions,
in which it is so laid or the successive aforesaid the Legislative
Assembly agree in making any modification in the rule or the
Legislative Assembly agree that the rule should not be made, the
rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified from or be
of no effect as the case may be, so, however, that any such
modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity
of anything previously done under that rule.”
xxx         xxx           xxx
“Rule 3A (1) - Every person responsible for making payment of
any person (hereinafter in this rule referred to as the contractor)
for discharge of any liability on account of valuable consideration
payable for the transfer of property in goods (whether in goods or
in any other form) in pursuance of the works contract shall at the
time of making such payment to the contractor either in cash or in
any manner, deduct 1.5% of the gross amount of the bill towards
tax payable in case of r.c.c bridge and 4%
of the gross amount of
the bill towards tax payable in respect of other works under section
3A of the Act on account of such works contract:
Provided that no such deduction shall be made from the bill(s) or
invoice (s) of the contractor for execution of works contract on
account of the contracts for which work order was issued prior to
first January, 1989:
Provided also that any person responsible to make deduction of
any amount equal to the amount of tax as mentioned in this rule
may refer the matter to the Superintendent of Taxes, having
jurisdiction over the area, for provisional computation of the net
turnover and the amount of tax payable thereof by such contractor
for the valuable consideration of the goods involved in the works
contract.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1147
(2) Every person responsible for making payment to any person
for discharge of any liability on account of valuable consideration
payable for any transfer of the right to use any goods for any
purpose (whether or not for a specified period) for cash or in any
manner, shall at the time of making such payment, deduct an
amount equal to four percentum of such towards part or as the
case may be, full satisfaction of the tax payable under the Act, on
account of such transfer of right:
Provided no such deduction shall be made from the bill(s) or
invoice(s) of the transferrer -
(a) on account of such transfer where the transfer of right to use
goods was agreed to before first day of January, 1989;
(b) The amounts received as penalty for defaults in payment or
as damages for any loss or damage caused to the goods by the
person to whom such transfer was made; and
(c) The amount representing the valuable consideration received
for such transfer in respect of goods exempt from tax under Sub-
section (2) and (3) of Section 3 of the Act.”
8.2  In exercise of the powers under Section 44 of the TST Act
the State Government had enacted the TST Rules which were placed
before the Legislative Assembly. On fair reading of Section 44 of the
Act which is a rule making power it can be seen that the rule making
power under Section 44 is inclusive and wide enough to cover the
procedure for recovery including tax deduction at source.
8.3 Section 3 of the TST Act can be said to be
the charging Section
and the liability to pay the tax shall be as per Section 3 of the TST Act.
As per Section 3(1) of the TST Act every dealer in taxable goods shall
pay a tax on his turnover at the rate specified in column (3) of the
Schedule. As per the proviso to Section 3(1) as inserted by Tripura Sales
Tax (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1987 w.e.f. 12.05.1987 the rate of tax on
any transfer of the right to use any goods for any purpose (whether or
not for a specified period) shall be 4%. The ‘Sale’ is defined under
Section 2(g) and it means any transfer of property, in goods for cash or
deferred payment or other valuable considerations, and includes any
transfer of the right to use any goods for any purpose for cash, deferred
payment or other valuable consideration, and such delivery or transfer
of any goods shall be deemed to be a sale of those goods by the person
THE STATE OF TRIPURA & ANR. v. CHANDAN DEB & ORS.
[M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1148
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
making the delivery or transfer and purchase of those goods by the
person to whom such delivery or transfer is made. Thus, any transfer of
right to use any goods including the vehicles shall be deemed to be a
‘sale’ as defined under Section 2(g)(ii). The word ‘Dealer’ has been
defined under Section 2(b) of the TST Act and it means any person who
sales taxable goods. As observed hereinabove the sale of taxable goods
shall be as per Section 2(g) of the TST Act. Therefore, on combine
reading of Section 3 read with Section 2(b) & 2(g) of the TST Act any
transfer of the right to use any goods (including the vehicles) shall be
deemed to a ‘sale’ and the transferor of the right to use any goods/
vehicles can be said to be a dealer and therefore liable to pay the tax at
the rate of 4% on any transfer of the right to use any goods as per
proviso to Section 3(1). Therefore, the liability to pay the tax at the rate
of 4% on any transfer of right to use any goods shall be under Section
3(1). Therefore, the submissions on behalf of the respondents – suppliers/
transferers that as there is no sale or transfer of the goods and that they
are not registered with the TST Act and therefore, the liability to pay the
tax at 4% does not arise cannot be accepted. As observed hereinabove
the liability to pay the tax shall be on the transferer who transfers the
right to use any goods as per proviso to Section 3(1) read with Section
2(b) and
2(g) of the TST Act.
9. Now next question which is posed for consideration before this
Court would be whether Rule 3A(2) of the TST Rules and the
memorandum issued by the Government to deduct the tax at 4% and the
bills to be paid to the transferers can be said to be ultra vires to TST Act
is concerned, it appears that the High Court has held the said provision
as ultra vires by observing that there is no such provision for tax deduction
at source under the TST Act and therefore, the Rule cannot go beyond
the Act. The aforesaid view taken by the High Court is absolutely
fallacious. Rule 3A(2) can be said to be a recovery machinery/
mechanism. What Rule 3A(2) provides is only for a machinery/
mechanism where the person buying the goods is required to deduct the
tax at source and deposits the same with the Revenue. It does not in any
manner change the chargeability of the tax or liability of the tax which is
under Section 3(1) of the TST Act read with Section 2(b) & 2(g) of the
TST Act.
9.1 As observed hereinabove the rules are framed in exercise of
Rule-making power under Section 44 of the Act and in that view of the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1149
matter and as the liability to pay the tax on transfer of right to use the
goods shall still be continued under proviso to Section 3(1), mere providing
for mode of recovery and/or providing for machinery/mechanism to
recover the tax to be paid by the transferer/supplier from the person
buying the goods deducting the tax at source and depositing the same
with the Revenue cannot be said to be ultra vires to TST Act and the
Rules as observed and held by the High Court. At the cost of repetition,
it is observed and held that Rule 3A(2) does not in any manner change
the chargeability of the tax or liability to pay the tax. Therefore, the High
Court has fallen in error in misinterpreting Rule 3A(2) of the TST Rules
and has fallen in error in declaring Rule 3A(2) of the TST Rules ultra
vires to TST Act and the High Court has materially erred in quashing
and setting aside the memorandum issued by the State Government
requiring the hirers namely the ONGC and the GAIL to deduct an amount
equivalent to 4% out of the respective bills of the suppliers of the vehicles.
10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present
appeals succeed. The impugned common judgment and order passed by
the Division Bench of the High Court and that of the common judgment
and order passed by the learned Single Judge declaring Rule 3A(2) of
the Tripura Sales Tax Rules, 1976 as ultra vires to the Tripura Sales Tax
Act, 1976 and quashing and setting aside the memorandum of
1992 issued
by the State Government requiring the hirers to deduct an amount of tax
at 4% out of the respective bills of the suppliers of the vehicles are
hereby quashed and set aside. Necessary consequences shall follow.
Present appeals are accordingly allowed. No costs.
Nidhi Jain
Appeals allowed.
(Assisted by : Abhishek Pratap Singh and Tamana, LCRAs)
THE STATE OF TRIPURA & ANR. v. CHANDAN DEB & ORS.
[M. R. SHAH, J.]