1979 (2) TMI 182 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues Involved:

1. Liability of a dealer to pay purchase tax under Section 6 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957.
2. Interpretation of Section 6 in light of purchases from agriculturists.
3. Applicability of Supreme Court decisions on similar provisions in other state laws.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Liability of a Dealer to Pay Purchase Tax under Section 6 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957:

The appeals were filed under Section 24(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, challenging the orders passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes revising the orders of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals). The primary issue was whether the assessee, a dealer in chillies, groundnut, and cotton, was liable to pay purchase tax under Section 6 of the Act for the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71. The Commercial Tax Officer initially levied purchase tax under Section 6 on the purchase turnover of chillies, including those that had escaped assessment earlier under Section 12A. The Deputy Commissioner modified these orders, exempting purchases from agriculturists based on a prior decision in B.S. Guddad & Sons v. State of Mysore. However, the Commissioner, influenced by the Supreme Court decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. M.K. Kandaswami, revised these orders, reinstating the original assessments.

2. Interpretation of Section 6 in Light of Purchases from Agriculturists:

Section 6 of the Act stipulates that every dealer who purchases taxable goods in circumstances where no tax is leviable on the sale price and either consumes, disposes, or dispatches them outside the state, except in the course of inter-State trade, shall pay tax on the purchase price. The Full Bench re-evaluated the decision in Guddad & Sons, which had exempted purchases from agriculturists from tax. The Court noted that Section 6 is a charging section aimed at preventing tax evasion and ensuring that goods not taxed at the sale point are taxed at the purchase point if they are subsequently removed from the tax net by the dealer's actions.

3. Applicability of Supreme Court Decisions on Similar Provisions in Other State Laws:

The Full Bench considered the Supreme Court's interpretation in State of Tamil Nadu v. M.K. Kandaswami, which dealt with similar provisions in the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The Supreme Court had held that such provisions are both charging and remedial, aimed at blocking tax leakage. The Karnataka High Court found that Section 6 of the Karnataka Act was substantially similar to Section 7A of the Tamil Nadu Act and Section 5A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The Court emphasized that the expression "taxable goods" in Section 6 refers to goods not exempted under the Act, and the provision applies even if the seller is an agriculturist not considered a dealer under the Act.

The Full Bench concluded that the decision in Guddad & Sons was incorrect, as it failed to recognize that Section 6 imposes tax on purchases from agriculturists if the goods are dispatched outside the state without being sold in the course of inter-State trade. The Court held that the assessee was liable to pay purchase tax under Section 6 for the chillies purchased from agriculturists and dispatched outside Karnataka.

Conclusion:

The Full Bench overruled the decision in Guddad & Sons and answered the referred question in the affirmative, holding that a dealer who purchases taxable goods from agriculturist-producers and dispatches them outside Karnataka, except in the course of inter-State trade, is liable to pay purchase tax under Section 6 of the Act. The cases were remanded to the Division Bench for disposal in accordance with this interpretation.

← Previous Next →