9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (7) TMI 226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, which were declared goods, had been sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce and, therefore, they were liable to be exempted from assessment in view of the decision of this Court in Munshi Abdul Rahiman Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, I Circle, Hubli[1967] 20 S.T.C. 89. The assessee had not paid tax under the Central Sales Tax Act even though the goods in question had been, admittedly, sold in the course of inter-State trade. After the decision in the case of Munshi Abdul Rahiman and Brothers(1), section 15(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, was amended by the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1972, with effect from 1st October, 1958, and section 5(4) of the State Act was amended by the Karnataka Sales Tax (Amendmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer while passing the order of assessment under the State Act on the basis of the earlier decision of this court became untenable. The Commercial Tax Officer therefore took action to rectify under section 25-A of the State Act the order of assessment passed earlier. After issuing notice to the assessee and hearing him, the Commercial Tax Officer rectified the mistake by levying tax under section 5(4) of the State Act on the purchase turnovers of groundnuts and cotton referred to above. Aggrieved by the order of rectification the petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Dharwar. The appeal was dismissed. A further appeal to the Karnataka Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, also failed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of any of the declared goods under sub-section (4) of section 5 of the State Act, would become refundable only on proof of such goods being subsequently sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce and on proof of payment of tax under the Central Sales Tax Act. On a true construction of the proviso to sub-section (4) of section 5 of the State Act, we are of the view that a dealer who wants to claim the benefit of the proviso to subsection (4) of section 5 of the State Act should first pay the tax under the Central Sales Tax Act and then claim reimbursement under the said proviso after satisfying the conditions mentioned therein. It is obvious that in order to claim such reimbursement tax must have been paid under the State Act. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed Additional Solicitor-General that the amendment made in clause (b) was intended to mark a departure from the position in law as it existed before the amendment. The fact that the amendment of clause (b) of section 15 was not like some other provisions given retrospective effect, would not materially affect the position. As already mentioned above, the legislature as a result of the amendment, clarified what was implicit in the provisions as they existed earlier." The learned counsel for the petitioner is not right in his submission, because the Supreme Court made the above observation while deciding the question whether refund of the tax paid under the State Act could be claimed by the person who had paid the tax under the Central Sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
