1976 (7) TMI 145 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Challenge to assessment orders under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957
- Constitutional validity of sub-section (2) of section 6-A of the Act
- Interpretation of article 286(3) of the Constitution and section 15(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956

Analysis:
The appeals were filed against the order in W.P. No. 1514 of 1974 challenging assessment orders under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, related to the sale of cardamoms in Sakleshpur, Karnataka. The appellants contended that they were first purchasers liable to tax on purchases made from commission agents but claimed exemption on purchases from registered dealers. The main grounds of challenge were the constitutionality of sub-section (2) of section 6-A of the Act, alleging violations of article 286(3) of the Constitution and section 15(a) of the Central Act. The single Judge dismissed the writ petitions, prompting the appellants to appeal the decision.

The appellants, during the appeal, focused solely on the argument that sub-section (2) of section 6-A was void due to repugnancy with article 286(3) of the Constitution read with section 15(a) of the Central Act. They contended that the provision could lead to multiple taxation stages on "declared goods." However, the Court rejected this argument and upheld the constitutional validity of sub-section (2) of section 6-A, emphasizing the restrictions imposed by article 286(3) and the conditions set by the Central Act regarding the levy and rates on declared goods.

The assessment orders were challenged based on the levy of sales tax on the first purchases of cardamoms in the State. Despite not challenging the constitutionality of section 5(4) of the Act, the appellants sought to quash the assessment orders. The Court noted that the appellants had admitted to being first purchasers except for purchases from registered dealers, making the invocation of sub-section (2) of section 6-A unnecessary. It was clarified that the assessments were made based on the appellants' own admission as first purchasers, rendering the challenge on the constitutional grounds irrelevant.

The Court highlighted the principle of not deciding on the constitutionality of an Act if the case can be resolved without doing so. As the assessments were valid based on admitted facts, the Court declined to express an opinion on the validity of sub-section (2) of section 6-A. Consequently, since no other grounds were pressed, the appeals were dismissed with costs, emphasizing that the challenge against the assessment orders lacked merit in light of the admitted facts.