1961 (3) TMI 81

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r simple. The assessee is a registered dealer under the Orissa Sales Tax Act bearing Registration No. PUI 1552, carrying on business at Sakhigopal in cocoanuts. The assessee was assessed under sub-section (2) of section 12 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act for the quarters ending on 30th September, 1950, and 31st March, 1950. The assessee purchased cocoanuts from producers as well as from other dealers in Orissa and sold them to dealers outside Orissa by transporting the said commodities by rail. The purchasers outside Orissa used to place orders with the assessee whereafter they collected necessary quantities of cocoanuts and booked them by rail endorsing the railway receipts as self. Afterwards the railway receipt is endorsed in favour of the o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... liable to taxation under Article 286(1)(a) was not pointedly argued before the Tribunal. But that certainly arose out of the first appellate order. Mr. G.K. Misra, learned counsel on behalf of the Department argued that since the point was not raised before the Appellate Tribunal, it has now reached a finality. Be that as it may, this Court cannot allow an illegality to be perpetuated. What the first appellate court did was that he referred to the Explanation to sub-clause (a) of Article 286(1)(a) which reads as follows: "(1) No law of a State shall impose, or authorise the imposition of a tax on the sale or purchase of goods where such sale or purchase takes place: (a) outside the State; or (b) in the course of the import of the goods i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... essee would be entitled to the exemption from Bihar sales tax by virtue of the Explanation to Article 286(1)(a) of the Constitution and it would be not necessary for the assessee to prove further that the goods so delivered were actually consumed in the State of first destination. Having regard to this view of the law, it is abundantly clear from the record that the goods were delivered to the outside States for purposes of consumption. It is, however, not necessary to prove that the goods were actually consumed in those States. Thus, the view taken by the first appellate court is clearly wrong in law. The Tribunal has not applied his mind to this aspect of the question. The result is that the consideration of the question referred to this .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X