9911796707
TMI Blog1958 (1) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sales tax for the year ending 31st of March, 1950, to the extent of Rs. 3,60,703-4-0. The order of assessment was made by opposite party No. 5, the Superintendent of Sales Tax at Jamshedpur and the petitioner was directed to deposit the amount by the 20th December, 1950. It appears that the petitioner had already paid an advance of a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 towards the payment of sales tax, and on the 16th of December, 1950, the petitioner paid the additional amount of Rs. 60,703-4-0. On the 30th of March, 1953, the Supreme Court pronounced its judgment in The State of Bombay v. The United Motors (India) Limited[1953] 4 S.T.C. 133; [1953] S.C.R. 1069. , holding that Article 286(1) of the Constitution, read with the Explanation thereto, prohibit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner is that for the period of assessment, namely, 1st of April, 1949, to 31st of March, 1950, the petitioner is not liable to pay tax on sale of goods delivered outside the State of Bihar. The order of assessment shows that the amount of tax was Rs. 3,60,703-4-0 and the case of the petitioner is that for the period from the 1st of April, 1949, to the 25th of January, 1950, the taxable turnover with regard to sale of goods delivered outside the State of Bihar was Rs. 1,81,36,442-5-5 and for the period from the 26th of January, 1950, to the 31st of March, 1950, the taxable turnover was Rs. 34,39,360-8-0. We do not find these figures in the order of assessment; but in the application of the petitioner for revision under section 24 of the B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner is that he is entitled to a refund of the sales tax paid on sale of goods delivered outside the State of Bihar for this period also. Precisely a similar constitutional question was at stake in the decision of a Division Bench of this High Court in Indian Steel and Wire Products Ltd., Jamshedpur v. Superintendent of Commercial Taxes, Singhbhum[1956] 7 S.T.C. 776; I.L.R. 35 Pat. 1055. It was held in that case by the Division Bench, for the reason elaborately given, that Article 286(1)(a) of the Constitution, read with the Explanation thereto, prohibited imposition of tax on sales or purchases involving inter-State elements by all States except the State in which the goods were delivered for the purpose of consumption therein. The Explanat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the assessee was exempt from the payment of tax only if there was proof that the goods were delivered and consumed in the State of first destination, and the sales would not be exempted if the goods were not consumed in the State of first destination but they were re-exported from the State of first destination to other States. In this case the claim of the petitioner is that for the period from the 26th of January, 1950, to the 31st of March, 1950, there was sale of goods delivered outside the State of Bihar to the extent of Rs. 34,39,360-8-0. There is no finding of the Sales Tax Authorities as to whether the petitioner has offered proof as to how much of these goods were delivered and consumed in the State of first destination and how m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
