9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (7) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent year 21st March, 1967, to 20th November, 1967, and it is directed against the order dated 22nd November, 1972, in S.T.A. No. 222 of 1972, on the file of the Mysore Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. The matter arises this way: The respondent is a dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, hereinafter called the "Act". The dealer had collected sales tax amounting to Rs. 565.80 on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id decision has been challenged in this revision petition by the State. In State of Mysore v. S.S. Dhundushi[1975] 35 S.T.C. 411 at 412; (1973) 2 Mys. L.J. 445 at 446., this court held that the amendment of section 18(1) of the Act which came into force on 1st April, 1966, has not made any difference in the position of law as laid down earlier in V.P. Patil v. Commercial Tax Officer[1970] 25 S.T.C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the judgment in the said case was relied upon in the case of A.B. Manufacturing Co(4). This is what Shah, J., as he then was, stated in the case of Ashoka Marketing Ltd.(5): "The State Legislature may under entry 54, List II, be competent to enact a law in respect of matters necessarily incidental to 'tax on the sale and purchase of goods'. But a provision compelling a dealer who has delibera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount from the purchaser on a representation that he is entitled to recover or recoup himself for payment of tax to pay that amount to the State when there is no levy of tax on the sale or purchase of the goods. Therefore, the view taken by this court in Dhundushi's case' is right and, accordingly, the Tribunal was right in reversing the order of the authorities below and setting aside the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
