1960 (7) TMI 50 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the taxing authorities have correctly disregarded sales beyond the assessment year when the notification levied the sales tax only on the last purchaser within the State, and satisfactory evidence has been led to show the revision petitioner not to be such last purchaser though after the relevant year?

Analysis:
The judgment of the Kerala High Court dealt with a revision petition filed by a dealer claiming exemption on a turnover of certain goods. The petitioner's claim for exemption was based on the argument that the sales tax was leviable only on the last purchaser within the State, as specified in the relevant notification. The petitioner contended that since they were not the last purchaser, the exemption should not have been disallowed. The Court examined the legal provisions of the General Sales Tax Act, which specified that the tax would be levied at a single point in the series of sales by successive dealers as notified by the Government. The relevant notification specified the taxable point for goods like pepper, ginger, and turmeric as the last purchase in the State by a dealer not exempt from taxation under the Act.

The petitioner's Advocate argued that since the petitioner was not the last purchaser within the State, the liability to pay tax on the stock of goods should not arise, even if the sales occurred beyond the relevant assessment year. However, the Court disagreed with this argument, emphasizing that for taxation purposes, each year is a separate self-contained period, and events before and after the assessment year are excluded. The Court cited precedents under the Indian Income-tax Act to support this principle, highlighting that income, profits, and gains made in a specific year are the only relevant factors for taxation assessment.

The Court further clarified that the tax under the Act is payable on the turnover for a fixed period, and the assessment year serves as a self-contained unit for assessing liability. The absence of an express limitation in the notification regarding the year does not affect this principle. The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that the intention of the authority was to notify the person incurring the liability, stating that "last purchaser" refers to a person within the specified period due to the unitary nature of the assessment year. The Court held that relaxing this rule would allow for the cancellation of last purchases after the assessment year to avoid taxation, which is not permissible. Therefore, the Court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the tax authorities' decision to disallow the exemption claim based on the principles of annual taxation.