9911796707
TMI Blog1973 (6) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee under section 18-A of the said Act. They were assessed to sales tax on their sales of foreign liquor in respect of the various assessment years above referred to. Resisting those assessments the petitioners contended that the foreign liquor having been subjected to sales tax under section 21-A of the Madras Prohibition Act as also a gallonage fee under section 18-A of that Act, the same cannot again be brought to charge under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, in view of section 8 read with item 3 of Schedule III of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. It was also contended that in any event the sales tax collected and paid over to the State under section 21-A and the gallonage fee paid under section 18-A of the Prohibition Act cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing the said decision in Spencer and Co., Madras v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Division No. III, Madras[1969] 24 S.T.C. 161., we are convinced that at least one point has to be decided in favour of the petitioners. The first contention of the petitioners is that in view of section 8 read with item 3 of Schedule III of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, foreign liquor which has been subjected to various duties such as sales tax and gallonage fee should be taken to have been exempted from tax under the provisions of that Act. A similar contention was advanced before this court on two earlier occasions in Phipson & Co. (Private) Limited v. Government of Madras[1964] 15 S.T.C. 740. and Spencer and Co., Madras v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble to be taxed under the Madras General Sales Tax Act. The learned counsel for the petitioners very strongly relies on the said decision in support of his contention that the sales tax collected under section 21-A cannot form part of the turnover for the purpose of the General Sales Tax Act. But, the learned counsel for the revenue submits that the decision in Spencer and Co., Madras v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Division No. III, Madras[1969] 24 S.T.C. 161., so far as it deals with this point requires reconsideration. But we are not convinced that the principle laid down In the said decision on this point is in any way erroneous. Following the above decision we hold that the sales tax collected and paid over to the State by the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
