9911796707
TMI Blog1958 (10) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . This was answered in T.R.C. No. 44 of 1956*, which was disposed of on 30th August, 1958. It was decided that the expression "groundnut" is comprehensive enough to take in kernel also. This contention is therefore negatived. Another argument pressed upon us is that as the sales in question were completed in other States, the fact that deliveries were made in the Andhra State would not enable the Government to impose taxes. It may be mentioned here that before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner succeeded on this issue on the ground that these deals fell within the scope of Article 286 of the Constitution. The Tribunal thought Since reported as Motilal Hari Prasad and Bros. and Others v. The State of Andhra [1959] 10 S.T.C. 20. that having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in The Bengal Immunity Company Limited v. The State of Bihar and Others(1) which departed from the view taken in The State of Bombay v. The United Motors (India) Ltd.(2), the company could not be assessed to tax as the transactions were saved by Article 286 of the Constitution. If matters had stood there, the Tax Revision Cases filed by the Government against the order of the Sales Tax Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this section and the other provisions of this Act, turnover shall be determined in accordance with such rules as may be prescribed" that the Turnover and Assessment Rules, 1939, were framed. Rule 4(2) specifies certain categories of goods in regard to which the purchase thereof will constitute turnover. As we have already pointed out, it is the turnover of a dealer which is subject to the levy of sales tax and in regard to the goods enumerated in rule 4(2) including groundnut, the purchase amount will be deemed to be the turnover. Consequently, power is vested in the department to levy tax on goods at the purchase point. It is well-recognised that tax could be collected either at sale point or purchase point and it is too late in the day to contest the authority of the department to levy tax at purchase point. Finding the futility of the submission, counsel for the petitioner fell back upon the argument that although the tax is leviable on the purchase of commodities mentioned in rule 2, the department has to wait to impose the tax till the goods involved in the purchases were ultimately sold by the company. As substantiating this proposition, the learned counsel calls in aid a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 3 (5), proviso (ii), of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, where a dealer has been taxed in respect of the purchase of any goods in accordance with rules referred to in clause (i), he shall not be taxed again in respect of any sale of such goods effected by him and consequently it is not within the competence of the Government to cancel the rebate concerning the refined oil. It may be noticed that the Government granted rebate in regard to refined oil also upto 1951 when the Turnover and Assessment Rules were amended excluding the refined oil from the ambit of rule 18 by adding sub-rule (5). Subrule (5) enacted that sub-rules (1) to (4) which enable the dealers to claim rebate in regard to oils would not apply to refined oil. The argument pressed upon us by Sri Ranganadha Sastry is that the object of the second proviso to section 3(5) of the Sales Tax Act, 1939, being to avoid double taxation, refined oil also should be deemed to come within the purview of " such goods " mentioned in the second proviso. We are unable to give effect to this contention It is true that the intendment of the section is not to tax a transaction twice, but that does not mean that the Government is und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is argument also is equally untenable and is overruled. No other points are argued in these revision cases. It follows that T.R.C. Nos. 47 and 48 of 1956 are allowed except to the extent of weighment charges which were treated as permissible deductions and the respondent will pay the costs of the petitioner herein. Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs. 250 in each of these cases. T.R.C. Nos. 75 to 77 of 1956 are dismissed with costs. Advocate's fee in each of them is fixed at Rs. 200. TAX REVISION CASE No. 25 OF 1956 The petitioner herein is Messrs Berar Oil Industries carrying on the business of manufacture of groundnut oil at Akola in Madhya Pradesh. It has a branch at Adoni within the State of Andhra Pradesh. In regard to the purchases of groundnut made by the petitioner in the State of Andhra Pradesh in the year 1951, the Sales Tax Department levied taxes amounting to Rs. 9,359-13-0. The total turnover in this behalf was estimated at Rs. 6,00,858-13-3. For the purpose of this revision, the turnover may be divided into two categories. In regard to certain purchases amounting to Rs. 2,74,762-7-3, the petitioner figured both as the consignor and the consignee, while in respect of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
