1988 (4) TMI 419 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of the words "or, as the case may be, could have obtained" in the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act.
2. Applicability of the proviso to section 9(1) in cases where obtaining a C form is unnecessary due to tax exemption under section 8(2-A).
3. Determination of the appropriate State competent to levy tax on second and subsequent sales during inter-State movement of goods.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of the Words "or, as the case may be, could have obtained":
The primary issue revolves around the interpretation of the phrase "or, as the case may be, could have obtained" in the proviso to section 9(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act. This phrase was added by Amendment Act 28 of 1969 to address situations where a dealer effecting a second sale either obtained or could have obtained a C form in connection with the purchase of goods. The court examined whether this phrase includes scenarios where obtaining a C form was unnecessary due to tax exemptions.

2. Applicability of the Proviso to Section 9(1):
The petitioner argued that since horse-gram is exempt from sales tax under the Maharashtra Sales Tax Act, the first inter-State sale by the Maharashtra dealer is also exempt under section 8(2-A). Consequently, there was no need for the petitioner to obtain a C form, making the proviso to section 9(1) inapplicable. The proviso, according to the petitioner, applies only when it is necessary to obtain a C form, either obtained or could have been obtained, but not when it is wholly unnecessary.

The court, however, disagreed with this interpretation. It held that the words "or, as the case may be, could have obtained" were inserted to cover situations where obtaining a C form was not required and thus not obtained. This interpretation aims to avoid a lacuna in the law, ensuring that the appropriate State can levy tax on second and subsequent sales, even if the first sale was exempt from tax.

3. Determination of the Appropriate State:
The court clarified that section 9(1) specifies the State competent to levy tax on second and subsequent sales during the movement of goods from one State to another. The proviso to section 9(1) identifies the State from which the registered dealer obtained or could have obtained a C form as the appropriate State to levy the tax.

The court cited the historical context, including the Madras High Court decision in State of Madras v. K. Nandagopal Chetty, which highlighted a lacuna in the proviso before the 1969 amendment. The amendment aimed to rectify this by ensuring that even if obtaining a C form was unnecessary due to tax exemptions, the State from which the dealer could have obtained the form would still be competent to levy the tax.

The court also referenced the Madhya Pradesh High Court decision in Bhojmal & Sons v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, which had a different interpretation. The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that if obtaining a C form was unnecessary, the proviso to section 9(1) did not apply, and thus the State could not levy the tax. The Andhra Pradesh High Court disagreed with this reasoning, asserting that such an interpretation would lead to all second and subsequent sales being exempt from tax if the first sale was exempt, which was not the intention of the Act.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the proviso to section 9(1) applies even when obtaining a C form is unnecessary due to tax exemptions. The appropriate State to levy tax on second and subsequent sales is the State from which the dealer could have obtained the C form. The tax revision case was dismissed, and the levy of Central sales tax by the State of Andhra Pradesh was deemed valid and competent. The court emphasized interpreting the statute in a manner that avoids any lacuna and aligns with the legislative intent behind the amendment.

← Previous Next →