1967 (4) TMI 136 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Sales tax liability - Held that - Appeal dismissed. It is true that sections 3 and 4 speak of a year , i.e., the financial year, and it is only the turn- over during that year that is liable to taxation in the hands of the assessee, but section 4 has to be read with the Second Schedule, and reading section 4 with the Second Schedule, it seems to us clear that a dealer is not liable to pay a tax on the purchases until the purchases acquire the quality of being the last purchases inside the State. we agree with the Madras High Court that the assessee is right in contending that he was entitled to claim deduction in respect of the value of the stock of ₹ 2,27,250 as being the purchases other than last purchases of cotton.

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the expression "at the point of last purchase in the State" under the Madras General Sales Tax Act.
2. Application of section 4 of the Madras Act in determining tax liability on declared goods.
3. Distinction between taxable event and single point levy for declared goods.
4. Consideration of subsequent events in determining tax liability.

Analysis:

The Supreme Court judgment involved appeals against the decision of the Madras High Court in Tax Cases, confirming the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal's orders. The common point of law in both cases revolved around the interpretation of the expression "at the point of last purchase in the State" under the Madras General Sales Tax Act. The first case (Tax Case No. 105 of 1963) dealt with the deduction claimed by a cotton dealer for purchases other than the last purchases of cotton. The Commercial Tax Officer disallowed a portion of the claimed deduction, considering certain cotton stock as a last purchase. The Appellate Tribunal, diverging from a Kerala High Court decision, allowed the appeal, leading to a revision by the department and subsequent dismissal by the High Court, resulting in the appeal before the Supreme Court.

The appellant contended that the Madras High Court erred in dissenting from previous decisions and argued that the tax under the Madras Act is a yearly tax, focusing on the concept of last purchase in the State during the assessment year. However, the Supreme Court opined that a dealer is not liable to pay tax on purchases until they qualify as the last purchases inside the State. The Court emphasized the need to read section 4 of the Madras Act in conjunction with the Second Schedule to determine the point of levy for declared goods, ensuring compliance with the Central Sales Tax Act.

The judgment highlighted the importance of distinguishing between the taxable event and the stage at which tax levy occurs for declared goods, emphasizing that the character of acquisition of stock in hand remains undetermined until subsequent events unfold. The Court rejected the argument that subsequent years' events should determine tax liability, asserting that the taxability of purchases is contingent on them becoming the last purchases inside the State. The judgment also addressed the potential confusion in the High Court's illustration, clarifying that liability arises in the financial year when purchases qualify as the last purchases.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the Madras High Court's decision and directing the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to proceed with the cases in line with the Supreme Court judgment. The analysis delves into the intricate legal interpretation of tax liability on declared goods under the Madras Act, emphasizing the significance of the point of last purchase and the interplay between different legal provisions to determine tax obligations accurately.

← Previous Next →