9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (5) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The petitioner, a dealer in cotton, collected sales tax on sales of cotton in inter-State transactions during the period 10th November, 1964, to 31st March, 1968. Tax was not legally leviable on such transactions according to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Mysore v. Yaddalam Lakshminarasimhiah Setty Sons(1). Subsequently the petitioner refunded the said amounts to its customers. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had not made the initial collection of sales tax. Section 10 of the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Ordinance, 1969, which has been replaced by the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1969, reads thus: "10. Exemption from liability to pay tax in certain cases.-(1) Where any sale of goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce has been effected during the period between the 10th day of No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onstruction of sub-section (1) of section 10. The object of subsection (1) of section 10 is that in respect of sale transactions effected between the 10th day of November, 1964, when the Supreme Court pronounced its judgment in State of Mysore v. Yaddalam Lakshminarasimhiah Setty Sons[1965] 16 S.T.C. 231. and the 9th day of June, 1969, when the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Ordinance, 1969, was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore, is well-founded. The 1st respondent was clearly in error in the view he has taken that where the dealer has collected the amounts but refunded the same before the Ordinance, the case does not fall under sub-section (1) of section 10. The petitioner, in our opinion, satisfies the requirements of sub-section (1) of section 10 and is not liable to sales tax on the turnover of inter-State sales o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
