9911796707
TMI Blog1953 (7) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s ending 30th June, 1951, and 30th September, 1951. The points in issue for both the quarters are same. Therefore, this order is common to revisions 51 and 52 in this Court. For the quarter ending 30th June, 1951, the dealer claimed a deduc- tion of Rs. 68,807-11-6 from his gross turnover for sales alleged to have been made in the course of inter-State trade. Similarly, for the quarter ending 30 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, then the dealer is liable for the tax, whatever be the nature of the actual transaction. The proviso imposes a penalty for defrauding the State of source of taxation at a previous stage by a false certificate. It is, therefore, a penalty that is levied, and not a tax, and Article 286 of the Constitution will not protect the petitioner if he has used the goods in a manner other than that speci- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had the right to legislate for taxing of the commodity where some part of the sale trans- action took place within the State. So, before the Constitution, the transaction of sale or resale need not have been legally a sale or resale within the State. After the Constitution, under Article 286, an extra-territorial right has been given to the State, and a sale or resale can also have an extra-terri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on. The structure of the Act was to bring dealers who carry on business of selling or supplying goods in Orissa within the ambit of the legislation. But nowhere has there been a specific definition given to sale as limiting it to within Orissa. So, strictly construing the statute, the petitioner was fully covered, if he had resold the articles instead of using them. He has, in fact, resold the art ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
