9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (11) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t transactions of sales in the course of inter-State transactions. The assessing authority rejected that contention and assessed the petitioner to tax even in regard to these transactions. It is this order of assessment that is now challenged in this writ petition. The principal contention which was raised before the assessing authority has been now raised before us. The contention was that under section 15(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act read with the proviso to section 6 of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act no tax can be levied on transactions of sale within the State if it is found that the goods were subsequently sold in the course of inter-State sales. In order to appreciate the implication of this contention it is necessary to read section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act which is as follows: "15. Restrictions and conditions in regard to tax on sale or purchase of declared goods within a State.-Every sales tax law of a State shall, in so far as it imposes or authorises the imposition of a tax on the sale or purchase of declared goods, be subject to the following restrictions and conditions, namely: (a) the tax payable under that law in respect of any sale or purchase of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax shall be assessed, levied and collected in such manner as may be prescribed. What becomes clear from section 6 is that declared goods are taxable at the rates mentioned in the schedule but only at one stage as is enjoined in section 15(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Section 6 in effect complies with the restrictions and conditions placed upon the power to levy tax in respect of declared goods by the State Government. As seen already the proviso to section 6 provides for refund in cases where the goods on which tax has been so levied are sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. The language of the proviso is in accord with the language of section 15(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Under rule 27-A of the A.P. General Sales Tax Rules the manner in which the refund can be made, the persons to whom such refund can be made and the conditions on which such refund can be made are prescribed. It enjoins that, "27-A. (1) Where any tax has been levied and collected under section 6 in respect of the sale or purchase inside the State of any declared goods and such goods are subsequently sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, the tax so levied and coll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, then no tax can be levied under the State law on the transactions which took place within the State. We do not find any substance in this contention. It is no doubt true that while section 6 of the Act used the word "levied", rule 27-A used the words "levied and collected", but on that account it will not be proper to say that there is a difference between the two provisions. In the context in which the term "levied" is used in section 6, it can only mean the tax imposed, assessed and collected. The same meaning is conveyed when rule 27-A used the words "levied and collected". The use of the word "collected" in rule 27-A cannot be said to restrict the meaning of the word "levied" in section 6. It merely brings out what was implicit in section 6. In the context of refund, the word "levied" appearing in section 6 and the words "levied and collected" appearing in rule 27-A clearly mean not only the imposition and quantification of a tax but also the collection. Unless the tax is calculated and collected it is difficult to conceive the case where the refund can be granted. The contention that the word "levied" appearing in section 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment order dated 18th May, 1961, was vitiated by an error of jurisdiction or by any error of law apparent on the face of the record. In spite of the abovesaid observations and the conclusions, the learned Judge observed: "As already stated, the department is no doubt entitled to collect the tax under section 6, but if the turnover as the last purchaser is but the turnover of the inter-State sales, the tax has to be refunded to the petitioner. The result would be that the assessee who had already paid the tax under the Central Sales Tax Act should pay the tax under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, and then obtain the refund. That would entail a lot of inconvenience to the assessee, and it has no merit except that it satisfies the letter of the law. This hardship, having evidently been realised by the department, in the case of the very assessee for the subsequent faslis, the turnover relating to the inter-State sales was exempted from the assessment under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act." After observing as above, the learned Judge said: "I think the interests of justice would be met by declaring that the tax need not be collected from the petitioner. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er: "The section does not appear to require that there should be a levy of tax under the Central sales tax law before the claim for refund can be accepted." In other words, their Lordships meant that in order to claim refund, although the Central sales tax is leviable and has not been actually levied, the claim for refund on that account cannot be said to be bad. It can be made even prior to a tax levied by the Central sales tax law. It is true that the interpretation of particular words appearing in the section has been made and those words do not relate to the levy of tax under the Central sales tax law. But if the whole judgment is read carefully, it can leave no one in doubt that the interpretation which their Lordships have put on the words do not apply to the question which their Lordships had considered and decided as stated above. This decision also, as has already been noticed, goes counter to the submission made by the learned Advocate for the petitioner. It clearly decides that the tax has to be levied by the State Government and a refund can be claimed only in a case where the statement under rule 20 in regard to the interState transaction has been submitted within ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... declared goods shall be levied at the stage of last sale or purchase inside the State. Certain State Governments levy tax at the first point of purchase on some of the declared goods under their respective laws, and to accommodate their views, it is proposed to leave with the States the option regarding the point of levy of tax on declared goods without in any way disturbing the scope of the present restrictions imposed by Parliament." It is difficult to infer from the abovesaid statement that the previous clause (b) which has been replaced by the present clause (b) remains the same. What was left undisturbed was the restrictions which were imposed by Parliament in regard to the percentage of tax beyond which the State cannot levy and the only one stage at which the State can levy the sales tax. When the change in the two provisions is distinct and clear, it will not be correct to argue that in spite of that change, the position of law remains the same, merely because something is said in the statement of objects and reasons. That does not seem to us to be the intention of the abovesaid statement. We are, therefore, clearly of the view that the petitioner could not have insisted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
