“i) The short question that we are called upon to
consider is whether considering the interim relief granted by this Court
whereby the petitioner herein was restrained from collecting the tax from
the purchasers, would invite the provisions of section 206C of the Act.
ii) U/s. 206C(1) every person, being a seller, had to
collect from the buyer of any goods of the nature specified in clause (2) of
the Table a sum equal to a percentage specified in the said Table. Under
sub-section (6) of section 206C any person responsible for collecting tax in
accordance with the provisions of this section shall, notwithstanding such
failure, be liable to pay the tax to the credit of the Central Government in
accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3). Sub-section (3) of
section 206C sets out that any person collecting any amount has to credit
the same to the credit of the Central Government as prescribed.
iii) On an order passed by this Court restraining the
petitioner from collecting the tax for the period, from the date of stay
till its vacation, is the petitioner liable pursuant to the provisions of
section 206C(6) ? The language used is any person responsible for collecting
the tax and who fails to collect the tax. It is true that the petitioner
being a seller is normally responsible. However, does it amount to ‘failure
to collect’ when he was restrained from collecting the tax ? Would he then
be responsible to collect the tax ? In the instant case admittedly
considering the language of the interim relief itself the petitioner who
otherwise was responsible for collecting the tax was prevented from
collecting the tax. Once the petitioner was prevented from collecting the
tax, it cannot be said that he was ‘a person responsible for collecting the
tax’. The responsibility would have arisen if he could collect the tax. The
expression ‘responsible’, therefore, has to be read in the context of
statutory duty to collect which the petitioner was bound to perform by
virtue of the provisions.
iv) The order of the Court would be binding and had to be
complied with. The issue of collection would arise at the point of sale. The
interim order was a blanket order of restriction from collecting. The
question of the petitioner, therefore, collecting the tax and therefore,
being responsible would not arise. There was bar on him to collect the tax.
If he could not collect the tax at the point of time of order, the question
of he depositing the sum u/ss. (3) or (6) of section 206C would not arise
till such period the disability disappeared. Alterna-tively on account of
the interim relief it cannot be said to be ‘failure to collect’. Failure
would contemplate an act of omission on the part of the party. The party was
aware that he had to collect the tax. This Court however, at the instance of
the buyer restrained him from collecting the tax.
v) In the instant case the disability disappeared on the
stay being vacated by this Court. Thus for the period when the stay was in
operation, as the petitioner was prevented from collecting the tax it cannot
be said that he would be liable under sub-section (6) of section 206C. A
duty was cast on the petitioner by operation of law. Petitioner could not
discharge that duty by virtue of an order of this Court. The question,
therefore, of calling on him to pay the amount which he was disabled to
collect would be illegal. If the petitioner had collected the tax it would
have been in contempt of this Court. We are, therefore, clearly of the
opinion that even though it can be said that considering the provisions of
section 206C a duty had been cast on persons like the petitioner to collect
the tax, by virtue of the interim relief he could not collect the tax for
the relevant period. Section 206C would, therefore, not be attracted.”
