मित्रो!
कानून द्वारा प्रवर्तनीय जनता के प्रयोजनों के लिए लोक प्राधिकारी द्वारा जन-सामान्य से धन का अनिवार्य अपकर्षण (तक़ाज़ा, उगाही, बलाद्ग्रहण) ही कर है। सेवाओं के लिए प्राप्त किया जाने वाला भुगतान कर नहीं है।
1. जनता के प्रयोजनों के लिए - कर दाता या किसी अन्य व्यक्ति विशेष को लाभ पहुंचाने के लिए नहीं।
2. लोक प्राधिकारी द्वारा - सरकार द्वारा किसी अन्य के द्वारा नहीं।
3. अनिवार्य अपकर्षण - अनिवार्य रूप से उगाही।
4. क़ानून द्वारा प्रवर्तनीय - बिना क़ानून के कर नहीं - कानून द्वारा साध्य।
यदि हम "कर" शब्द की परिभाषा को ठीक
तरह से समझ लें तब देय कर, कर से मुक्ति, रिफंड,
रिबेट आदि से सम्बंधित पहलुओं को अच्छी तरह समझ सकते हैं। कर का निर्धारण और बसूली
कानूनी प्राविधानों के अनुसार होती है। कानून में किये गए प्राविधान के अनुसार देय
धनराशि से अधिक बसूली गयी अथवा जमा की गयी धनराशि कर का अंश नहीं होती। ऐसी धनराशि
सरकार के राजस्व का भाग नहीं होती। कर की बाजिब धनराशि या उसका कोई भाग चाहे ऐसी धनराशि
कर दाता द्वारा स्वयं जमा की गयी हो या उससे बसूली प्रक्रिया के बसूल की गयी हो, सरकारी
राजस्व का भाग हो जाती है। ऐसे राजस्व या उसके किसी अंश का प्रयोग कर दाता या किसी
अन्य व्यक्ति को लाभ देने के प्रयोजन से नहीं किया जा सकता है।
कराधान से सम्बंधित किसी कानून में कर लगाने के
लिए तीन व्यवस्थाएं करनी होतीं हैं। घटना जिस पर कर उद्ग्राह्य होगा (event on
which tax shall be levied), कर-आधार तथा कर की दर जिस पर कर उद्ग्राह्य होगा (Base of tax and rate of tax at which tax
shall be levied) और व्यक्ति जिसके द्वारा उद्ग्राह्य कर की धनराशि जमा की जाएगी और
स्वतः जमा न किये जाने की स्थिति में ऐसी धनराशि ऐसे व्यक्ति से बसूली जाएगी। किसी
कराधान से सम्बंधित किसी कानून के कर उद्ग्रहण (Levy of tax) से सम्बंधित प्राविधान
में इन तीन विन्दुओं में से किसी एक भी विन्दु पर प्राविधान न होने की स्थिति में कर
उद्ग्रहण (Tax levy) अपूर्ण होता है। ऐसी स्थिति में यह नहीं माना जा सकता है कि अधिनियम
में कर लगाया गया है। निम्नलिखित परिस्थितयों में भी किसी कर का लगाया जाना नहीं माना
जा सकता है:-
1. जहाँ एक धारा में कर लगाने का प्राविधान किया
गया हो किन्तु दूसरी धारा में कर के भुगतान से मुक्ति दे दी गयी हो अथवा कर न लगाने
का प्राविधान किया गया हो।
2. जहाँ
एक धारा में कर लगाने का प्राविधान किया गया हो किन्तु दूसरी धारा में कर की धनराशि
के कर दाता को बापस करने का प्राविधान किया गया हो।
3. जहाँ एक धारा में कर लगाने का प्राविधान किया
गया हो किन्तु दूसरी धारा में कर का रिबेट दिए जाने की व्यवस्था हो।
4. जहाँ कर की दर शून्य या निल होने से उद्ग्राह्य
कर की धनराशि शून्य या अनिश्चेय (unacertainable) हो।
I am quoting here observations
of the Honorable Supreme Court from few important judgments. Judgments, referred to hereunder,
have been given by the Constitution Benches of the Honorable Supreme Court.
"A
neat definition of what "tax" means has been given by Latham C. J. of
the High Court of Australia, in Matthews
v. Chicory Marketing Board(1). A tax", according to the learned Chief
Justice, "is a compulsory exaction of money by public authority for public
purposes enforceable by law and is not payment for services rendered".
This definition brings out, in our opinion, the essential characteristics of a
tax as distinguished from other forms of imposition which, in a general sense,
are included within it.
It is said that the essence of
taxation is compulsion, that is to say, it is imposed under statutory power
without the taxpayer's consent and the payment is enforced by law. The second
characteristic of tax is that it is an imposition made for public purpose
without reference to any special benefit to be conferred on the payer of the
tax. This is expressed by saying that the levy of tax is for the purposes of
general revenue, which when collected revenues of the object of a tax is not to
confer any special benefit upon any particular individual, there is, as it is
said, no element of quid pro quo between the taxpayer and the public authority.
Another feature of taxation it; that as it is a part of the common burden, the
quantum of imposition upon the taxpayer depends generally upon his capacity to
pay."
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious
Endowments, Madras
Vs. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirpur Mutt. Date of judgment April
16, 1954.
"There is a
broad distinction between the provisions contained in the statute in regard to
the exemptions of tax or refund or rebate of tax on the one hand and in regard
to the non-liability to tax or non-imposition of tax on the other. In the
former case, but for the provisions as regards the exemptions or refund or
rebate of tax, the sales or purchases would have to be included in the gross
turnover of the dealer because they are prima facie liable to tax and the only
thing which the dealer is entitled to in respect thereof is the deduction from
the gross turnover in order to arrive at the net turnover on which the tax can
be imposed. In the latter case, the sales or purchases are exempted from
taxation altogether. The Legislature cannot enact a law imposing or authorising
the imposition of a tax thereupon and they are not liable to any such
imposition of tax. If they are thus not liable to tax, no tax can be levied or
imposed on them and they do not come within the purview of the Act at all. The
very fact of their non- liability to tax is sufficient to exclude them from the
calculation of the gross turnover as well as the net turnover on which sales
tax can be levied or imposed."
A. V. Fernandez vs The State Of Kerala, Judgment Dated April 02, 1957
"If a person is not liable for payment of tax at all, at any
time, the collection of a tax front bim. with a possible contingency of refund
at a later stage, will not make the original levy valid; because, if particular
sales or purchase are exempt from taxation altogether, they can never be taken
into account, at any stage, for the purpose of calculating or arriving at the
taxable turnover and for levying tax."
"In this connection, we may refer to the observations of this
Court in A. V. Fernandez v. The State of Kerala(1). This Court. after reffering
to the observations-made earlier in Messrs. Chatturam.Horilram Ltd. v.
Commissioner of Income- tax, Bihar & (1) [1957] S.C.R. 837. Orissa(1),
regarding the three stages in the imposition of tax, being the declaration of
liability, assessment, and recovery, said, "If there is a liability to
tax, imposed under the terms of the taxing statute, then follow the provisions
in regard to the assessment of such liability. If there is no liability to tax
there cannot be any assessment either. Sales or purchases in respect of which
there is no liability to tax imposed by the statute cannot at all be included
in the calculation of turnover for the purpose of assessment and the exact sum
which the dealer is liable to pay must be ascertained without any reference
whatever to the same.
There is a broad distinction between the provisions contained in
the statute in regard to the exemptions of tax or refund or rebate of tax on
the one hand and in regard to the non-liability to tax or non-imposition of tax
on the other. In the former case, but for the provisions as regards the
exemptions or refund or rebate of tax, the sales or purchases would have to be
included in the gross turnover of the dealer because they are prima facie
liable to tax and the only thing which the dealer is entitled to in respect
thereof is the deduction from the gross turnover in order to arrive at the net turnover
on which the tax can be imposed. In the latter case, the sales or purchases are
exempted from taxation altogether. The Legislature cannot enact a law imposing or
authorising the imposition of a tax thereupon as they are not liable to any
such imposition of tax. If they are thus not liable to tax, no tax can be
levied or imposed on them and they do not come within the purview of the Act at
all. The very fact of their non-liability to tax is sufficient to exclude them
from the calculation of the gross turnover as well as the net turnover on which
sales tax can be levied or imposed."
M/s Bhawani Cotton Mills Ltd vs State Of
Punjab & Anr Judgment Dated April 10, 1967
