9911796707
TMI Blog1956 (4) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... puty Commercial Tax Officer, Special Circle, Non-resident, Vepery, Madras, from taking proceedings for the recovery of sales tax from the petitioner under the Madras General Sales Tax Act. The petitioner is a resident of the Hyderabad State, and he has been exporting goods into the Madras State. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, the respondent here, issued a notice to the petitioner on 5th Octo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Authorities in Madras, the respondent passed an order on 13th January, 1955, provisionally assessing them to a tax of Rs. 2,812-8-0, and demanding payment of the said sum. The petitioners thereupon filed this writ petition in this Court questioning the legality of this order. Two grounds were put forward in support of the petitioner's contention that the Madras ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which were outside the State of Madras were brought over into Madras as part of the sale. As goods were transported to this State and delivered for consumption here they were inside sales within Article 286 (1)(a), Explanation. But, they were clearly transactions in the course of inter-State trade within Article 286(2) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court had held in the United Motors' case(1), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . No. 129 of 1955, and it is unnecessary to go over the ground again. The sale in the present case, which obviously falls within the Explanation to Article 286(1)(a), was taxable before the Ordinance under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, and therefore the tax is rendered valid as the transactions took place between the dates mentioned in the Ordinance. The result is that the writ petition fail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
