9911796707
TMI Blog1955 (3) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rised to levy tax from the dealer on all goods despatched to this State for the purpose of consump- tion. It appeared that the petitioner supplied goods to dealers as well as consumers in Assam for consumption in the State and as such the Superintendent of Taxes claimed that the petitioner was liable to registration and payment of sales taxes under the said Act. In reply, the manager of the petitioner wrote to the Superintendent of Taxes that the petitioner was not a dealer carrying on business within the State, inasmuch as it had neither any factory nor any branch office within the State of Assam. The factories of the petitioner making supplies and the branch offices arranging sales were both outside this State. It was, therefore, claimed by the petitioner that it was not carrying on business within the State and was not a dealer within the terms of the Sales Tax Act so as to be liable to registration under the Act. It accordingly informed the Superintendent of Taxes that it should not be compelled to seek registration. The taxing department, however, insisted that the petitioner although a non-resident dealer did in fact supply goods to the dealers as well as consumers in the S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m "dealer" under section 2(3) of the Assam Sales Tax Act. The petitioner also does not deny that it has collected sales tax from certain dealers in Assam but it asserts that these collections were made not by way of tax but by way of deposits and are subject to the condition that the amount will be refunded in the event of the supplies in question being held to be non-taxable by the State authorities. It is therefore contended on behalf of the petitioner that the claim of the department to get the petitioner registered under the Assam Sales Tax Act is in violation of Articles 265, 301 and 304 of the Constitution and is also an infringement of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The whole point therefore which arises for consideration in the case is whether the petitioner is a dealer within the meaning of sec- tion 2(3) of the Assam Sales Tax Act. If the petitioner is a dealer, then the taxing authorities are entitled to compel the petitioner to get itself registered and to take appropriate proceedings against it under the law on its failure to do so. If, on the contrary, the petitioner is held not to be a dealer then the taxing authoritie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the general law or under the Sale of Goods Act, the interest in the goods had passed at some other place. This principle is now very well established. The matter then resolves into this that the petitioner as a direct result of sales, even though held outside the frontiers of this State, has been delivering goods for consumption in the State of Assam. In other words, the petitioner has been carrying on the business of selling and supplying goods in this State and is there- fore a dealer within the meaning of the Assam Sales Tax Act. The word "dealer" has been defined in section 2(3) of the Act as follows: "'Dealer' means any person who carries on the business of selling or supplying goods in the State whether for commission, remuneration or otherwise and includes any society, club or association which sells or supplies goods to its members." The words "carries on the business of selling or supplying goods in the State" are comprehensive enough to cover the transactions which the petitioner has been admittedly carrying on; namely, the selling and supplying of cement to dealers and consumers in this State. The petitioner tries to avoid liability by asserting that because he h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction with the Madras Sales Tax Act. There also, it was held that where the goods were delivered for con- sumption in a particular State that State had the power to impose a use tax or a purchase tax thereon, notwithstanding that the transaction of sale is extra-State. Mr. Ghose, on behalf of the petitioner, has urged that the decision in The Bengal Immunity case(2) is still under appeal to the Supreme Court and as such, no finality attaches to our pronounce- ment; but it may be pointed out that the Supreme Court itself has given its seal of approval to our interpretation of Article 286 as con- tained in the aforesaid decision. I am referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Bombay v. United Motors (India) Ltd.(3) Chief justice Patanjali Sastri there held that clause (2) of Article 286 stands excluded as a result of the legal fiction enacted in the Explanation and the State in which the goods are actually delivered for consumption can impose tax on inter-State sales or purchases. The effect of the Expla- nation in regard to inter-State dealing is to invest what, in truth, is an inter-State transaction with an intra-State character in relation to the State of deliver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
