Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

Supreme Court Holds Rule 3A(2) of Tripura Sales Tax Rules Valid, Allows Tax Deduction at Source

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has upheld the validity of Rule 3A(2) of the Tripura Sales Tax Rules, 1976, allowing for tax deduction at source (TDS) on the transfer of the right to use goods. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and Krishna Murari, declared that the rule is not ultra vires the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976. The court emphasized that Rule 3A(2) serves as a recovery mechanism and does not alter the liability or chargeability of tax. The ruling overturns the previous decision of the High Court, which had held the provision as ultra vires and quashed the memorandum requiring TDS.

The court clarified the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Tripura Sales Tax Act. It stated that every transfer of the right to use goods, including vehicles, is deemed to be a sale under the Act. Therefore, the liability to pay tax at a rate of 4% on such transfers rests with the transferor, who can be considered a dealer under the Act. The court rejected the argument put forth by the suppliers that they were not registered with the Tripura Sales Tax Act and thus not liable to pay tax.

Regarding the challenge to Rule 3A(2), the court noted that the rule was framed under Section 44 of the Act, which provides the rule-making power. It opined that the rule falls within the scope of the Act and does not exceed the legislative authority. Rule 3A(2) serves as a mechanism for recovery of tax from the buyer, who deducts and deposits the tax with the revenue authorities. The court held that the provision does not alter the chargeability or liability to pay tax, and thus, the High Court erred in declaring it ultra vires.

Justice M.R. Shah, delivering the judgment, stated, "Rule 3A(2) is not ultra vires the Tripura Sales Tax Act. It is a recovery mechanism and does not change the chargeability or liability to pay tax. The provision for tax deduction at source does not go beyond the provisions of the Act and Rules." The court further emphasized that Rule 3A(2) merely establishes the procedure for recovering the tax payable by the transferor/supplier from the buyer.

It affirms the legal validity of tax deduction at source on the transfer of the right to use goods, providing clarity and ensuring the proper collection of taxes. The decision brings certainty and upholds the legislative intent behind the Tripura Sales Tax Act.

Date of Decision: March 24, 2023

THE STATE OF TRIPURA & ANR. VS CHANDAN DEB & ORS.

Latest Legal News