1967 (3) TMI 101 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the State to assess turnover involving inter-State sales.
2. Interpretation of provisions under the Central Sales Tax Act and the Madras General Sales Tax Act regarding the enhancement of turnover in appeals.

Jurisdiction Issue:
The judgment dealt with disputed turnovers, some involving inter-State sales and others under the Madras General Sales Tax Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that certain transactions were of inter-State character. The assessee argued that only the State from which the goods moved could tax subsequent sales during transit. The court disagreed, stating that the turnover falls under the proviso to section 9(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Even though certificates in Form E were not produced, declarations in C Forms were obtained from authorities in the State. The court held that the sales fall within the ambit of the proviso to section 9(1), allowing the State where the C Forms were obtained to assess the turnover.

Interpretation of Provisions Issue:
Regarding the second point raised by the assessee, the court focused on the last three items of turnover. The argument was that since there was no bar under the Madras General Sales Tax Act to enhance turnover in an appeal, the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act should not apply. The court agreed with this argument, citing the principle that when a Legislature adopts provisions from a different Act by reference, no intention exists for amendments in the referenced Act to automatically become part of the adopting law. This principle was supported by previous judgments. As a result, the petition was allowed for the last three items of turnover, and the petitioner was granted costs.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the jurisdiction of the State to assess turnover involving inter-State sales and interpreted provisions under the Central Sales Tax Act and the Madras General Sales Tax Act regarding the enhancement of turnover in appeals. The court upheld the assessment based on the proviso to section 9(1) for the turnover and allowed the petition for the last three items based on the interpretation of relevant statutory provisions.