1960 (11) TMI 102 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 5(viii) of the Act regarding the first purchaser of tobacco within the State.
2. Application of section 22 of the Act as amended in 1955 in determining the first purchaser within the State.
3. Allegation of discrimination in tax imposition based on the interpretation of relevant provisions.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Madras High Court, delivered by Rajagopalan, J., addresses the interpretation of section 5(viii) of the Act concerning the identification of the first purchaser of tobacco within the State. The Tribunal's view, based on the evidence presented, that the assessee was the first purchaser and not the wholesaler, is deemed correct and not subject to revision. The factual scenario involved the wholesaler purchasing tobacco in Andhra through a commission agent, with deliveries and sales completed within Andhra. The subsequent transport of tobacco to Madras did not constitute a direct result of the purchase in Andhra, as required by section 22 of the Act. Thus, the delivery to the assessee in Madras did not meet the criteria for being considered the first purchase within the State.

Regarding the application of section 22 of the Act as amended in 1955, it was argued that the wholesaler's transport of tobacco from Andhra to Madras should be considered a direct result of the purchase, making him the first purchaser within the State. However, the Court clarified that the delivery occurred in Andhra, and the subsequent transport did not fulfill the conditions outlined in section 22. Therefore, the assessee could not be considered the first purchaser within the State based on these grounds.

Furthermore, the judgment addressed the allegation of discrimination in tax imposition due to the interpretation of the provisions. The contention was that if the wholesaler was not considered the first purchaser within the State, the assessee would face additional tax liabilities. The Court dismissed this argument, stating that the Tribunal's decision was based on the evidence presented, and there was no discrimination in the tax imposition. The price paid by the assessee to the vendor constituted the purchase turnover subject to taxation, and no discrimination could be inferred based on this. Ultimately, the petition was dismissed, upholding the Tribunal's decision that the assessee was the first purchaser of tobacco within the State of Madras.