9911796707
TMI Blog1961 (9) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in T.C. No. 16 of 1959 in respect of a turnover of Rs. 2,58,453 and Rs. 1,31,995 in T.C. No. 19 of 1959. The contention advanced against the assessment is shortly that the petitioners are not liable to be taxed on the sales turnover of the tanned hides and skins, as it offends against the scheme of single point taxation. The argument is that in so far as hides and skins are concerned, the taxation is invariably at the purchase point, and if the taxing authorities have failed to assess the turnover at that point, it is not open to them to rely upon a transaction which is not at the point fixed, that is to say there is no second point at which the goods in question can be brought to tax. It is, as we have stated, common ground that these raw hides and skins were purchased partly outside the State. Part of these purchases was also effected from unlicensed dealers within the State. In the case of both these purchases, the department and the Tribunal took the view that the scheme of taxation as laid down in the rules fixing the single point at which the tax could be levied did not include purchases which were effected from unlicensed dealers on purchases which were completed outsi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount for which they are bought by him. This rule will not be applicable to part at least of the transactions covered by the present revision petitions. Certainly, in so far as the goods that were purchased outside the State are concerned, if the transactions of purchases were completed outside the State, the petitioners cannot be regarded as the last purchasers in the State. It is also clear from the scheme of the Act and the rules that the person who will be the last purchaser in the State of untanned hides and skins would be either the tanner who converts the raw hides and skins into tanned hides and skins or who exports the raw hides and skins. Where export is not involved, it is obvious that rule 16(1) lays the liability to tax on the tanner who should necessarily be the last purchaser in the State of the raw hides and skins. Rule 16(2) falls into two parts and it deals with the case of hides and skins which have been tanned outside the State or are tanned inside the State. In either of these cases, the rule provides that the tax shall be levied from the dealer who is the first dealer in the tanned hides and skins. Clearly, the taxation of the tanned hides and skins in cases w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and skins are sold to a tanner in the State", that is to say, the purchase turnover in the hands of the tanner for the purpose of the levy of tax of untanned hides and skins took into account only the sale to him by a licensed dealer in hides and skins. In so far as raw hides and skins purchased from the unlicensed dealers were concerned, rule 16(2)(1) did not fix any point of taxation. It follows therefore that the petitioners could not be taxed on the purchase value of the raw hides and skins which they purchased from licensed dealers. We do not understand the learned counsel to say that notwithstanding that in the case of the purchase from unlicensed dealers the rules did not provide the stage for taxation, they should nevertheless be taxed only on such purchase value and not on the sale value of the tanned hides and skins. As we have pointed out, the stage of purchase from the unlicensed dealers was not a point fixed by these rules as required by section 5 of the Act. Unless this purchase transaction can be attracted to the point fixed by these rules, the machinery of the Act did not provide for the inclusion of that purchase turnover in the assessable turnover of the tanner. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d at the point fixed in the series of successive sales. The levy of tax therefore on the tanned goods is correct. In T.C. No. 16 of 1959, arisiag out of T.A. No. 151 of 1958, a further question arises. The dispute is with regard to a turnover covered by sales of raw hides and skins. According to the petitioners, they entered into contracts with foreign buyers and delivered shipping documents such as bills of lading to the local banks against the payment of the price. It was claimed that the local banks should therefore be deemed to be the agents of the foreign buyers, that is to say, the foreign buyers through their agents, the local banks, had effected the purchase within the State. If that is so, learned counsel contends that the foreign buyers should be deemed to be the last purchasers in the Madras State and that the assessment of the petitioners is not within the rules. The question is whether this contention is correct. Under rule 16(1), the tax is leviable from the dealer who is the last purchaser in the State in the case of untanned hides and skins. Accepting the course of the transaction as stated on behalf of the petitioners to be correct (no records have been produce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
