Holding

The amendment that altered tariff categories falls within Section 3(2) of the Kerala Plantations Tax Act and can be given effect only from the next financial year, so the 1987‑88 assessment cannot be based on the revised rates.

Summary

The State of Kerala appealed against the Kerala High Court’s order that the revised plantation‑tax rates introduced by the Kerala Finance Act, 1987 could not be applied during the 1987‑88 financial year. The appellants argued that the amendment to Schedule‑I of the Kerala Plantations Tax Act, 1960, which altered both rates and tariff categories, should be effective from 1 July 1987, thereby allowing two assessments in the same year. The respondents contended that under Section 3(2) of the 1960 Act, any revision that changes the tariff structure can only take effect from the next financial year, and that chargeability is independent of the Finance Act. The Court held that the amendment constituted a revision within the ambit of Section 3(2) because it altered tariff categories, and therefore could be given effect only from the 1988‑89 financial year, precluding a second assessment in 1987‑88. Consequently, the State’s demand was held invalid and the appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the amendment to Schedule‑I of the Kerala Plantations Tax Act, 1960 by the Kerala Finance Act, 1987 results in two assessments in the same financial year 1987‑88.
Whether the revised plantation‑tax rates can be levied for any part of the financial year 1987‑88 or only from the next financial year 1988‑89.
Whether the amendment constitutes a ‘revision’ under Section 3(2) of the Kerala Plantations Tax Act, 1960, i.e., whether it alters the tariff structure/categories.
Whether chargeability to tax is independent of the passage of the Finance Act.

Legislation cited

Subjects

plantation taxrevision of ratesassessment yearchargeabilityFinance Acttariff structureSection 3(2)Kerala Plantations Tax Acttax law interpretation

Judgment

STATE OF KERALA A
v.
ALEX GEORGE AND ANR. ETC.

NOVEMBER 18, 2004

[S.N. VARIA VA, DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND
B
S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.]

Kera/a Plantations Tax Act, 1960; Ss. 3, 5 and 9A with amendment
made in Schedule I to the Act by Kera/a Finance Act 18 of 1987 revising
the rates of plantations tax : c
Levy of additional plantation tax in the middle of financial year due
to revision in the rate of tax in terms of amendment-Validity of-Held
: Chargeabi/ity of tax is independent of the passing of the Finance Act-
State Finance Act aims to prescribe/revise the rates of tax and not intended
to replace the entire procedural and substantive tax law-Revision in_ the D
tax on amendment affects the tariff categories as well as the tariffstructure-
Thus, falls within the ambit of Section 3(2) of the Act-Hence, tax assessed
due to revision in the tax rates, could be charged only from the financial
year following such revision-State competent to revise the tax but it could
not be given effect to in the middle of the financial year-Kera/a Plantations E
(Additional Tax) Rules, 1960; Rule 16.

Words and Phrases :

'Valuation date' and 'Revision '-Meaning of in the context of Kera/a
Plantations Tax Act, 1960. F
The questions which arose in this batch of appeals were as to the
true scope and operation of Section 1(2) of the Kerala Finance Act 18
of 1987 amending Schedule-I to the Kerala Plantations Tax Act, 1960
in revising the rates of plantation tax w.e.f. 1.7.1987, and as to whether G
amendment in the Schedule-I to the Act results in two assessments in
the same financial year, one w.e.f. 1.4.1987 and another one with revised
rate of tax w.e.f. 1.7.1987.

It was contended by the appellant-State that the effect of substituting
the revised Schedule w.e.f. 1.7.1987 was to revise the rate of plantation H
163
,.

164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004]SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A tax during the financial year 1987-88 in terms of the State Finance Act
18of1987; that the object of the State Finance Act would stand defeated
if the revised rates were held to be made applicable on and from the next
financial year 1988-89; and that the revision in the rate of plantation
tax under the amended schedule would not result in two assessments
B during the assessment year 1987-88.

It was submitted by the assessees that the exigibility to plantation
tax in terms of Section 3(2) of the Kerala Plantation. Tax Act was as on
the first day of each financial year; that the revised tax would be payable •·
only from the financial year immediately following the revision, thus the
c revised rates could be levied from the financial year 1988-89; and that
since the Scheme of the Act rules out two assessments during the same
financial year, demand of the assessing authority in levying the tax at
existing rate for the period 1.4. 1987 to 30.6.1987 and at the revised rate
for the period 1.7.1987 to 31.3.1988 was not feasible.
D
Dismissing the appeals, the Court

HELD : 1. Revision simpliciter in the ra.te of tax is different from
revision which alters the tariff structure and the tariff categories. In the
instant case, the revision brought upon by substitution of revised not
E only effects revisions in the rates, it also revises the tariff categories as
well as the tariff structure and consequently, such a revision would fall
within the ambit of Section 3(2) of the Kerala Plantations Tax Act. In
the case of revision in the rates simpliciter, the assessable extent of the
holding remains constant throughout the year, whereas in the case of
F revision in the tax structure, the assessable extent of the holding undergoes
a change. In this case, the revised schedule increased the assessable
extent of the holding. The revised schedule altered the tariff categories.
Therefore, the revision in question in this case squarely came within the
ambit of Section 3(2) of the Act and such a revision could be given effect
to only in the next immediate financial year 1988-89. However,
G chargeability is independent of the passing of the Finance Act. Therefore,
one has to read the Finance Act in consonance with the provisions of
the charging Section. The function of the State Finance Act primarily
was to prescribe the rate of tax and the manner of calculation of tax;
and it is not intended to incorporate the entire procedural and substantive
H law relating to tax. In the circumstances, it could be said that the object
STATE v. ALEX GEORGE [KAPADIA, J.] 165

of the Finance Act I 8 of 1987 was only to revise the rates of plantation A·
tax. It is reiterated that the State can always revise the rates of the
plantation tax in the middle of the financial year provided the assessable
extent of the lands comprised in the plantation as on 1st April of each
year is not altered. [174-C, D, E, F, G, HJ

Mis. Govind Saran Ganga Saran v. Commissioner ofSales Tax & Ors.,
B
AIR (1985) SC 1041; Mis. Goodyear India Ltd. v. State ofHaryana & Anr.,
AIR (1990) SC 781; Kesoram Industries & Cotton Mills Ltd. v. The
Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Central), Calcutta, AIR (1966) 1370 and The
Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. v. The State of Kera/a, AIR (1966) SC 1385,
relied on. c
2. It is clarified that this judgment is confined only to insertion of
Schedule-I in the Kerala Plantations Tax Act, 1960 by the Kerala
Finance Act 18 of 1987 and it would not apply to the amendments to
other enactments, namely, the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and D
the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976. [175-C, D]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 979-986 of
1999.

From the Judgment of Order dated 28.8.98 of the Keral High Court
in O.P. Nos. 307, 308, 113, 8276/89, 9933/89-G, 8334/90, 11351/91, 16530
E
of 1992.

WITH

C.A. Nos. 987-1000 of 1999.
F
John Mathew for K.R. Sasiprabhu for the Appellants.

Jayant Bhushan, Prashant Bhushan, Thomas Vellapally, P.S. Sudheer,
Mrs. Anjalai K. Verma, Niraj Gupta, C.N. Sree Kumar and Mrs. M.L.
Shyjatha for the Respondents. G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KAPADIA, J. : This batch of civil appeals by special leave against
the judgment and order of the Kerala High Court dated 28.8.1998 raises the
question as to the true scope and operation of section 1(2) of the Kerala H
166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 6 S.C:R. I
I

~
A Finance Act, 18 of 1987 substituting schedule-I to the Kerala Plantations
Tax Act, 1960 w.e.f. 1.7.1987.

Since the aforestated question arises in all the civil appeals, the same
are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment.

B Since the facts in this batch of civil appeals are almost identical, we
mention hereinbelow the facts of Civil Appeal No. 983 of 1999.

E.K. Mathew & Brothers is a registered partnership firm carrying inter
alia the business of planting tea in Alam pally estate in Pasuppara in the State
C ofKerala. For the assessment year commencing from 1.4.1987, the firm was
assessed under section 3 of the Kerala Plantations Tax Act, 1960 (hereinafter
for the sake of brevity referred to as "the 1960 Act"). Under assessment
order dated 6.9 .1988, the said firm was assessed to tax @ Rs. 130 per hectare
for the p~riod from 1.4.1987 to 30.6.1987 and at the revised rate of Rs. 350
per hectare for the remaining nine months period from 1.7.1987 to 31.3.1988.
D The said assessment was made pursuant to the substitution of schedule-I to
the said 1960 Act by the Kerala Finance Act, 18 of 1987 w.e.f. 1.7.1987.
By the said amendment, the tariff in existence as on the first day of the
financial year, viz. 1.4.1987 stood revised in the midst of the year w.e.f.
Ji,.7.1987. Consequently, in terms of the demand notice, the assessee was
E asked to pay the tax at the rate of Rs. 130 per hectare for the period 1.4.1987
to 30.6.1987 and at the rate of Rs. 3 50 per hectare for the period l. 7 .1987
to 31.3.1988.

Aggrieved, by the assessment order dated 6.9.1988, the said firm
preferred an appeal before the Sub-Collector, Devicolam, Idukki district. By
F order dated 20.6.1989, the Sub-Collector, as an Appellate Authority,
confirmed the assessment order dated 6.9.1988 and consequently dismissed
the appeal.

Against the said order of dismissal, the said firm moved an application
G under section 9A of the 1960 Act requesting the Sub-Collector to refer the
following question of Jaw to the District Judge:

"Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, plantation tax
at the revised rate of Rs. 350 per hectare introduced by the Kerala
Finance Act, 18of1987 w.e.f. 1.7.1987 was leviable for any part
of the financial year 1987-88?"
H
STATE v. ALEX GEORGE [KAPADIA, J.] 167

In the meantime, by judgment and order dated 21.l 0.1988, in O.P. A
No.3610 of 1988 entitled MJ. Vijaya Padman v. The State of Kera/a &
Another, the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala held that the
amended rates applied from the commencement of the financial year I 987-
88 as the object of the said Act 18 of 1987 was to give effect to the budget
proposals for that year. Consequently, the applicability of the levy was B
upheld and original petitions filed by the assessees stood dismissed.

Placing reliance on the above judgment of the High Court, the Sub-
Collector dismissed the application for reference under section 9A filed by
the said firm.
c
At this stage, it may be mentioned that prior to 21.l 0.1988, there was
conflict of opinion in the decisions of the District Judges under section 9A.

In the case of Udayagiri Rubber Co. Ltd. v. State ofKera/a, it was held,
that, the plantation tax was assessable under section 3 at the rate prevalent
on the first day of each financial year and that the same could not be altered D
during the year.

Consequent upon this difference of opinion, the assessees and the
State, both being the aggrieved parties, came before the Division Bench by
filing writ appeals and writ petitions respectively. E
By the impugned judgment dated 28.8.1998, th~ Division Bench has
held that the assessees were liable to be taxed for the assessment year 1987-
88 on the basis of the rates specified in schedule-I as on 1.4. I 987; that the
revision in tariff in the middle of the assessment year would result in two
assessments during the same year; that the substitution of the schedule w.e.f. F
l. 7 .1987 cannot affect the assessment for assessment year 1987-88; that the
liability to pay the tax got crystallized on 1st April each year as mentioned
in section 3(2); and consequently, assessment as per the new schedule could
be made only from the assessment year 1988-89. The appellant-State then
applied to this Court and obtained special leave to appeal against the G
impugned judgment of the High Court.

Mr. John Mathew, learned advocate for the appellant herein submitted
that revision in the rates under the new schedule w.e.f. 1.7.1987 would not
result in two assessments during the assessment year 1987-88; that the
demand in question was for the differential tax and consequently, the H
168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A question of two assessments during the same assessment year did not arise.
He further contended that the object of enacting the State Finance Act, 18
of 1987 was to give effect to the budget proposals for the financial year
1987-88; that the effect of substituting schedule-I w.e.f. 1.7.1987 was to
revise the rates of plantation tax during the financial year 1987-88 and that
B object would stand defeated if the revised rates were held to be applicable
on and from financial year 1988-89. Learned Advocate submitted, that, in
the circumstances the High Court had erred in holding that the revised rates
were applicable only from assessment year 1988-89.

Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of
C the assessees, submitted that under section 3(1) of the said 1960 Act,
exigibility to tax was with reference to the extent of the lands comprised
in the plantation as on the first day of each financial year; that under section
3(2), the tax assessed is payable for each financial year till the extent of the
holding is revised; that such revised tax is payable only from the financial
D year immediately following the revision and consequently, it was urged,
that, the revised rates could apply from the assessment year 1988-89. It was
urged that the scheme of the said Act rules out two assessments during the
same year. In this connection, it was pointed out that the assessing authority
has demanded the said tax at the rate of Rs. 130 per hectare for the period
1.4.1987 to 30.6.1987 and at the rate of Rs. 350 per hectare for the period
E I. 7 .1987 to 31.3 .1988 which indicated that the assessees were assessed
twice during the same year which was not permissible under the said Act.
In the circumstances, it was urged, that, no interference was called for as
there was no merit in the civil appeals.

F The basic point for determination is : whether in the present case, the
revised schedule introduced in the 1960 Act, by the Finance Act, 18of1987,
results in two assessments?

To answer the aforestated question, we need to examine the provisions
of the said 1960 Act. The said Act is enacted to provide for the levy of an
G additional tax on plantations in the State of Kerala. Section 2(9) defines the
expression "valuation date", in relation to the financial year for which an
assessment is to be made to mean the first day of April of that year. Section
3(1) is the charging section. Under the said section, for every financial year,
there shall be charged in respect oflands in the plantations, a tax at the rates
H specified in schedule-I. Under section 3(2), the tax assessed under the Act
STATE v. ALEX GEORGE [KAPADIA, J.] 169

shall be payable for every financial year till the extent of plantation held A
by the assessee is revised. That, from the financial year, immediately following
the revision, the tax assessed on the basis of such revision, shall be payable.
Under section 3(3), the assessing authority may at any time, suo motu, revise
the extent of plantation held by an assessee after hearing him. Under section
4(2), every assessee who, on the first day of the financial year holds two B
hectares or more of the lands in the plantation shall furnish to the assessing
authority a return before the first day of June of that year. Under section
5, the assessing authority is authorized to determine the extent of plantation
and the assessment of plantation tax. Section 6A deals with the cases of
plantations escaping assessment. Section 8 deals with the authority of the
assessing authority to serve notice of demand. Section 9 provides for an c
appeal against the order of assessment. Section 9A provides for reference
to the District Court. Sections 13 & 14 deal with recovery. Schedule-I refers
to the rates of tax. Prior to 1.4.1987, it read as under:

RATES OF PLANTATION TAX D
1 Where the aggregate extent Nil
of plantations held by a
person does not exceed
four hectares.
E
2 Where the aggregate extent Seventy rupees per hectare
of plantations held by a on the extent of plantations
person exceeds four in excess of four hectares.
hectares but does not
exceed eight hectares.
F
3 Where the aggregate extent Ninety rupees per hectare
of plantations held by a on the extent of plantations
person exceeds eight in excess of four hectares.
hectares but does not
exceed twenty hectares. G
4 Where the aggregate extent One hundred and thirty
of plantations held by a rupees per hectare on the
person exceeds twenty extent of plantations in
hectares. excess of four hectares.
H
170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A In exercise of the powers conferred by section 27 of the 1960 Act, the
Government of Kerala has framed the Kerala Plantations (Additional Tax)
Rules, 1960. Rule 16 provides for various forms prescribed for the purposes
specified against them. For the purpose of deciding the present civil appeals,
form-IA is relevant and it reads as under:
B
"FORM IA

[Notice of assessment under section 5/3(3) of the Kera la Plantation
Tax Act, 1960 as amended by the Kerala Plantations (Additional
Tax) Amendment Act, 1967]
c
To

D Whereas under the Kerafa Plantation Tax Act, 1960 as amended
by the Kerala Plantations (Additional Tax) Amendment Act, 1967
( 19 of 1967) which has come into force on the lst November, 1967,
the rate of Plantation Tax has been raised from Rs. 8 per acre to
Rs. 56 per hectare and the amount of tax fixed in the assessment
already made under section 5/3(3) of the Kerala Plantations
E (Additional Tax) Act, 1960 and communicated to you as per notice
of demand No ........ dated ....... requires revision on the basis of the
rate of Plantation tax fixed under the said Act as amended with
effect from the financial year 1968-69 and whereas the details
available in this office show that you hold Plantations to the extent
F shown below, it is hereby informed that you are assessed to pay
Plantation Tax amounting to Rs ... under the said Act as amended
by Act.19 of 1967.

Notice is hereby given that you may file objections, if any on
the above assessment to the undersigned within fifteen days of
G receipt of this notice failing which the assessment shown above will
be made absolute on the presumption that you have no objections
to the above assessment."

Thus, the scheme of the Act read with rules framed thereunder indicates
H that section 3(1) is the charging section; that the subject of the charge is the
STATE v. ALEX GEORGE [KAPADIA, J.] 171

extent of plantation held by an assessee on the first day of each financial A
year; that the tax is payable at the rates prescribed in schedule-I to the Act;
that the tax assessed is payable for the financial year until the extent is
revised; that even in the event of such revision, the tax assessed on the
revised basis shall be payable only from the financial year immediately
following such revision. This position is also made clear by form-IA quoted
B
above under which the revision was given effect to from the next financial
year 1968-69, though the rates stood revised by Amending Act 19 of 1967,
which came into force on l.l l.1967 i.e. during the financial year 1967-68.
Lastly, under the Act, the basis of the charge is the extent of the plantation
(hereinafter referred to as "the assessable extent").
c
We may now examine the Kerala Finance Act, 18 of 1987, which
received the Governor's assent on 20.8.1987. The said Finance Act was
passed to give effect to financial proposals of the Government for the
financial year 1987-88. It appears that the presentation of the budget got
delayed during the relevant year and accordingly the date of commencement, D
fixed under the said Act, was 1st day of July, 1987. By the said Finance Act,
three distinct and separate Acts were amended, namely : the Kerala General
Sales Tax Act, 15of1963; the Kerala Plantations Tax Act, 17of1960; and
the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 19 of 1976. In this matter, we are
concerned with the amendment to the 1960 Act. By the Finance Act, a
revised schedule of rates was introduced in the said 1960 Act, which read E
as under:

RATES OF PLANTATION TAX

1 a Where the aggregate Nil
extent of plantations
F
(except conco nut and
arecanut plantations)
held by a person does
not exceed two hectares.
G
b Where the aggregate Nil
extent of coconut or
arecanut plantations
held by a person does
not exceed four hectares.
H
172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A 2 Where the aggregate extent One hundred rupees per hectare on
of plantations (other than the extent of plantations in excess
coconut and arecanut) held of two hectares.
by a person exceeds two
hectares but does riot
exceed four hectares.
B
3 Where the aggregate extent i) In the case of One hundred
of plantations held by a plantations other and fifty rupees
person exceeds eight than coconut per hectare in
hectares. and arecanut. excess of two
c hectares.

ii) In the case of One hundred
coconut and and fifty rupees
arecanut per hectare in
plantations. excess of four
D hectares.

4 Where the aggregate extent i) In the case of Two hundred
of plantations held by a plantations other rupees per
person exceeds eight hectare: than coconut hectare in excess
but does not exceed fifteen and arecanut. of two hectares.
E hectares.

ii) In the case of Two hundred
coconut and rupees per
arecanut hectare in excess
plantations. of four hectares.
F
5 Where the aggregate extent i) In the case Two hundred
of plantations held by a of plantations and fifty rupees
person exceeds fifteen other than per hectare in
hectares but does not exceed coconut and excess of two
twenty-five hectares. arecanut. hectares.
G
ii) In the case Two hundred
of coconut and fifty rupees
and arecanut per hectare in
plantations. excess of four
hectares.
H
STATE v. ALEX GEORGE [KAPADIA, J.] 173

6 Where the aggregate extent i) In the case of Three hundred A
of plantations held by a plantations other and fifty rupees
person exceeds twenty-five than coconut per hectare in
hectares. and arecanut. excess of two
hectares.

ii) In the case of Three hundred B
coconut and and fifty rupees
arecanut planta- per her.tare in
tions. excess of four
hectares.

In order to appreciate the contentions of the rival parties, one must bear
c
in mind the essential components entering into the concept of a tax.

In the case of Mis. Govind Saran Ganga Saran v. Commissioner of
Sales Tax & Others reported in AIR (1985) SC l 041, this Court has held
that the first component in the concept of a tax is the character of imposition, D
the second is a clear indication of the person on whom the levy is imposed
and who is obliged to pay the tax, the third is the rate at which the tax is
imposed and the fourth is the value to which the rate is applied for computing
the tax liability.

In the case of Mis Goodyear India Ltd v. State of Haryana & Another
E
reported in AIR (1990) SC 781, it has been held that a taxable event is that
which on its occurrence creates the liability to tax, which liability does not
exist at later point of time. Even though the taxable event of a tax happens
to be at a particular point of time, the levy and collection of such tax may
be postponed, for administrative convenience, to a later date. Thus, in the F
context of the Central Excise Act, 1944, even though th·e taxable event is
the manufacture of an excisable article, the duty is levied and collected at
a later date for administrative convenience. Such later date is the date of
removal of goods from the factory. As a corollary, the charging section
cannot be limited or circumscribed by the machinery provisions of the Act. G
The machinery provisions cannot be interpreted so as to restrict the scope
of the charging section. Liability to tax is distinct from quantification by
assessment.

In the case of Kesoram Industries and Cotton Mills Ltd v. The
Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Central), Calcutta reported in AIR (1966) SC H
174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A 1370, it has been held that the chargeability is independent of the passing
of the Finance Act.

In the light of our above discussion, we have to examine the effect of
the Finance Act, 18of1987 qua section 3 of the 1960 Act. The said Finance
B Act, 18 of 1987 was enacted to give effect to the budget proposals for the
financial year 1987-88. To augment the revenues of the State, schedule-I
to the 1960 Act was sought to be amended by revising the existing rate of
plantation tax. In the present case, we are concerned with the content of the
expression "revision". Revision simpliciter in the rate of tax is different from
revision which alters the tariff structure and the tariff categories. Revision
c in the rate of tax simpliciter does not affect the assessable extent of the lands
in the plantation. This category of revision in the rates does not come within
the ambit of section 3(2) of the 1960 Act and consequently, such revisions
do not require revision in the assessment of tax. However, in the present
case, the revision brought upon by substitution of revised schedule not only I!
D effects revision in the. rates, it also revises the tariff categories as well as
the tariff structure and consequently, such a revision would fall within the
ambit of section 3(2) of the 1960 Act. In the case of revision in the rates
simpliciter, the assessable extent of the holding remains constant throughout
the year, whereas in the case of revision in the tax structure, the assessable
extent of the holding undergoes a change. In this case, the revised schedule
E increased the assessable extent of the holding. In the present case, the
revised schedule altered the tariff categories. Therefore, the revision in
question in this case squarely came within the ambit of section 3(2) of the
1960 Act and such a revision could be given effect to only in the next
immediate financial year 1988-89. As stated above, chargeability is
F independent of the passing of the.Finance Act. Therefore, one has to read
the Finance Act iri consonance with the provisions of the charging section.
The function of the Finance Act primarily is to prescribe the rate of tax and
the manner of calculation of tax; and it is not intended to incorporate the
entire procedural and substantive law relating to tax. In the circumstances,
we do not find merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant-
G State that the object of the Finance Act, 18 of 1987 was only to revise the
rates of plantation tax.

We may reiterate that the State can always revise the rates in the tlliddle
of the financial year provided the assessable extent of the lands comprised
H in the plantation as on Ist April of each year is not altered.
STATE v. ALEX GEORGE [KAPADIA, J.] 175

In the case of The Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. v. The State of Kera/a A
reported in AIR (1966) SC 1385, it has been held that by the imposition of
a different tariff in the course of the year, the incidence of the tax liability
may be altered by the Legislature, but for effecting that alteration, the
Legislature must devise machinery for computing it and if the Legislature
has failed to do so, the Court cannot resort to a fiction which is not B
prescribed by the Legislature and seek to effectuate that alteration by the
devising machinery not found in the enactment.

For the aforestated reasons, we answer the above question in favour
of the assessees and against the department.
c
Before concluding, we may clarify, that, this judgment is confined only
to insertion of schedule-I in the said 1960 Act by the Kerala Finance Act,
18 of 1987 and it will not apply to the amendments to other enactments,
namely, the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and the Kerala Motor
Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976. D
In the result, the appeals fail and are dismissed, with no order as to
costs.

S.K.S. Appeals dismissed.