1957 (4) TMI 46 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether in the calculation of net turnover appellant is entitled to include the total value of the oil sold by him, viz., ₹ 6,76,719-0-11, irrespective of the fact whether these sales were effected inside the State or outside the State and deduct therefrom the total value of copra purchased by him from which the whole quantity of oil sold by him was manufactured, viz., ₹ 7,16,048-1-4? Held that - The non-obstante provision contained in section 26 of the Act has the effect of taking these transactions out of the purview of the Act with the result that the dealer is not required nor is he entitled to include them in the calculations of his turnover liable to tax thereunder. Such inclusion, however, for the purposes aforesaid would not affect the non-liability of these transactions to levy or imposition of sales tax by virtue of the provisions of Article 286 of the Constitution and the corresponding provision enacted in the Act, as above. We are, therefore, of opinion that the conclusion reached by the High Court was correct; the calculations of the net turnover made by the Sales Tax Authorities were also correct; and this appeal must stand dismissed

Issues Involved:
1. Calculation of net assessable turnover.
2. Interpretation of relevant provisions of the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act and Rules.
3. Impact of Section 26 of the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1951.
4. Applicability of Article 286 of the Constitution on inter-State sales.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Calculation of Net Assessable Turnover:
The appellant, a manufacturer of coconut oil and cake, contested the assessment of his net turnover by the Sales Tax Officer for the year 1951-52. The appellant argued that his net turnover should be calculated by including the total value of oil sold (both inside and outside the State) and deducting the entire purchase price of copra used in manufacturing the oil. The Sales Tax Officer, however, excluded the value of oil sold outside the State from the turnover and only deducted the purchase price of copra corresponding to the oil sold inside the State. The High Court upheld the Sales Tax Officer's calculation.

2. Interpretation of Relevant Provisions:
The Court examined the definitions of "sale" and "turnover" under Sections 2(j) and 2(k) of the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act, which did not distinguish between sales inside and outside the State. Rule 4 of the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Rules, 1950, also did not differentiate between such sales. Rule 7 provided for the deduction of specific amounts from the gross turnover to determine the net turnover, including deductions for registered manufacturers under Rule 20.

3. Impact of Section 26 of the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1951:
Section 26, added by the Amendment Act of 1951, prohibited the imposition of tax on sales or purchases in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. The Court concluded that Section 26 had the effect of excluding such transactions from the ambit of the Act. Therefore, the value of oil sold in inter-State trade could not be included in the turnover for tax assessment purposes. This exclusion also meant that the corresponding purchase price of copra could not be deducted from the gross turnover.

4. Applicability of Article 286 of the Constitution on Inter-State Sales:
Article 286 of the Constitution restricts States from taxing sales or purchases that occur in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. The Court noted that various State Sales Tax Acts had incorporated provisions to align with Article 286. In this case, Section 26 of the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act mirrored the restrictions of Article 286, effectively removing inter-State sales from the purview of the Act. Consequently, the appellant's argument to include the value of inter-State sales in the turnover and then deduct it was invalid.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the Sales Tax Officer's method of calculating the net assessable turnover was correct. The non-obstante clause in Section 26 effectively excluded inter-State sales from the taxable turnover, and the appellant was not entitled to deductions related to such sales. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

← Previous Next →