{"id":13144,"date":"2020-10-19T04:50:39","date_gmt":"2020-10-19T04:50:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/godfrey-phillips-v-state-of-up-2005-2-scc-515-air-2005-sc-103-2005-194-ctr-257-sc\/"},"modified":"2020-10-19T04:50:39","modified_gmt":"2020-10-19T04:50:39","slug":"godfrey-phillips-v-state-of-up-2005-2-scc-515-air-2005-sc-103-2005-194-ctr-257-sc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/godfrey-phillips-v-state-of-up-2005-2-scc-515-air-2005-sc-103-2005-194-ctr-257-sc\/","title":{"rendered":"Godfrey Phillips v. State of UP (2005) 2 SCC 515\/AIR 2005 SC 103\/(2005) 194 CTR 257 (SC)"},"content":{"rendered":"<h3>Facts<\/h3>\n<p>Various States had enacted statutes levying tax on supply of \u201cluxury goods\u201d. These\u00a0 tax laws were justified as falling within Entry 62 List II which reads as \u201ctaxes on luxuries, including taxes on entertainments, amusements, betting and gambling\u201d and therefore immune from the various Constitutional restrictions which are otherwise applicable to a tax enacted under Entry 54 List II (\u201ctax on sale or purchase of goods\u201d), namely Article 286 read with Sections 14 and 15 of Central Sales Tax\u00a0 Act, 1956 as well as statutory restrictions under ADE Act 1957 where\u00a0\u00a0 the States have opted to take benefit under that Act.<\/p>\n<p>\u00a0<\/p>\n<h3>Issue<\/h3>\n<p>Whether Entry 62 List II can cover \u201cgoods\u201d, even if they are luxurious in nature, when the same items are also covered under Entry 54 List II?.<\/p>\n<p>\u00a0<\/p>\n<h3>View<\/h3>\n<p>The principle of <em>noscitur a soiicis <\/em>was applied and it was held that \u201cluxuries\u201d would only mean those luxuries which areanalogous to entertainments, amusements, betting and gambling and which are intangible in nature. Based on historical convention, it was held that luxury goods were always treated as falling within the power relating to levying of sales tax and not the\u00a0 tax\u00a0 on\u00a0luxuries. The Court further held that there should be no overlapping in the taxable events specified in taxing entries in the Constitution,and the Court should adopt an interpretation which does not allow any kind of overlapping.<\/p>\n<p>\u00a0<\/p>\n<h3>Held<\/h3>\n<p>The tax on luxury goods was held to be outside Entry 62 List II and other issues were left open. (WP. No. 567 and 568\/094 &amp; Ors dt. 20-1-2005)<\/p>\n<p><strong><em>Editorial <\/em><\/strong>: After the enactment of the Constitution 101st Amendment Act, 2016, the tax on luxuries has been deleted from Entry 62 List II. However, the principles expressed in this judgment on the rule against overlapping of taxing entries remains applicable even today.<\/p>\n<p><em>\u201cStrength does not come from physical capacity.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>It comes from an indomitable will.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<p>&#8211; Mahatma Gandhi<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Uttar Pradesh Tax on Luxurious Act , 1955<br \/>\nS.3: Levy of Luxury tax- Entry 62 List II: \u201ctaxes on luxuries\u2026\u201d \u2013  Cannot include \u201cgoods\u201d even if they are \u201cluxury goods\u201d which are covered by Entry 54 List II \u2013 No overlapping in taxing entries of Seventh Schedule [ Central Sales Tax Act , 1956 , S 14 , 15, Constitution of India , Art 286 ] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13144","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gst-law"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-3q0","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13144","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13144"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13144\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13145,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13144\/revisions\/13145"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13144"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13144"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13144"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}