9911796707
TMI Blog1961 (12) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pay a tax of Rs. 12,558-04 nP. The turnover which was determined in that way related to the transactions of the petitioner in cotton seeds and groundnuts. The correctness of the determination of the turnover by the Commercial Tax Officer is not questioned by the petitioner. But what is contended on his behalf by his learned Advocate, Mr. Ullal, is that to the extent of Rs. 1,60,706-38 nP., which represented the sum of money for which the petitioner sold certain quantity of groundnuts after 31st March, 1959, the turnover was not taxable. Now, this sum of Rs. 1,60,706-38 nP., was the price realised by the petitioner in respect of the sales of groundnuts made by him after 31st March, 1959. Mr. Ullal says that, since groundnuts were "declare ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll not be levied at more than one stage; ................." Article 286(3) of the Constitution directs that a State law in so far as it imposes or authorises the imposition of a tax on the sale or purchase of goods declared by Parliament by law to be of special importance in inter-State trade or commerce, shall be subject to such restriction and condition in regard to the system of levy, rates and other incidence of the tax as Parliament may by law specify. Now, the Central Sales Tax Act is one such law and the 14th section of that law declares oil seeds to be of special importance in inter-State trade or commerce. Since it is not disputed, and in my opinion rightly, that groundnuts are oil seeds, it is obvious that the Mysore Sales Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which the petitioner has been called upon to pay sales tax is the price paid by him for the purchase of groundnuts which he did not sell during the assessment year but part of which was sold by him only subsequently. It is not the petitioner's case that any sales tax has been levied by the Sales Tax Authorities in respect of any part of the turnover of the petitioner at more than one stage, although the petitioner's contention is that some part of the groundnuts purchased by him during the assessment year has been subsequently sold by him. It is not alleged that the person to whom the groundnuts were sold has been called upon to pay sales tax in respect of the purchase made by him. It is thus clear that that part of the 15th section of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the last purchase of the goods specified in the Fourth Schedule and since the petitioner is not the person who made the last purchase since admittedly after having made the purchase during the assessment year he sold part of the goods so purchased by him to another dealer after the expiry of the assessment year, it was not possible for the Commercial Tax Officer to call upon the petitioner to pay any tax on the purchases of those goods by him during the assessment year. In other words, the argument is that the incidence of tax is not on the last purchase in the assessment year, but only the last purchase in the chain of transactions after which there is no sale of the goods. If this contention is correct, it follows that to the ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a correct construction of section 5(4) of the Mysore Act the tax can be levied in the case of the last purchase in the assessment year, it becomes obvious that the petitioner being the last purchaser of the goods in the assessment year, the Commercial Tax Officer was right in assessing the purchase turnover in his hands. In my opinion, section 5(4) makes it clear that if a dealer is the last purchaser of the goods in the assessment year, he is clearly liable to pay the tax in respect of that purchase turnover even if he, in his turn, sells those goods to another dealer after the expiry of the assessment year. Section 5(4) does not concern itself with a purchase other than that made in the assessment year provided the goods are not again s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le himself. A construction lending to such consequences should, in my opinion, not commend itself to us. The view that I have taken in this case receives support from the pronouncement of their Lordships of the High Court of Bombay in Kishinchand Chellaram v. Commissioner of Income-tax[1956] 29 I.T.R. 993., wherein Chagla, C.J., observed at page 1,000: "It is difficult to understand on what principle of taxation law can an assessee rely on a subsequent event in order to escape taxation which he is properly liable to pay as far as the assessment year itself is concerned." The same view was taken by their Lordships of the High Court of Kerala in Abdulsalam Rowther v. State of Kerala[1962] 12 S.T.C. 98., in which it was pointed cut that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
