9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (7) TMI 238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (74 of 1956), the State Government having been satisfied that it is necessary to do so in the public interest hereby direct that in respect of all declared goods sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, no tax under the said Act shall be payable by any dealer, having his place of business in the State in respect of the sale by him of such goods where tax has been levied and collected in respect of the sale or purchase of such declared goods under section 5(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (Orissa Act 14 of 1947), subject to the following conditions, namely: (i) the burden of proving that the tax under section 5(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (Orissa Act 14 of 1947), has been levied and col ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the dealer shall not claim refund of that tax under section 15(b) of the Central Act, the Central sales tax shall not be payable. A statutory notification [in exercise of the power under section 8(5) of the Central Act] cannot be permitted to run counter to section 15(b) of the Central Act. That view has been taken in Rafeeq Ahmed Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh[1969] 24 S.T.C. 430., and we respectfully agree with the same. The tax to be refunded under section 15(b) of the Central Act is the tax levied under the State Act. The notification, in our view, is a misconceived one, though it was intended to avoid the hardship of the claim of refund. We hold that it is not enforceable. " The ratio in the Orissa Hides Trading Co.'s case[1975] 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion and it has been made subject to other provisions of the Act. Section 8 makes provision for rates of tax on sales in the course of inter-State. trade or commerce. As already pointed out, the notification was made in 1966. By then, section 8(5) contained the following provision: "Notwithstanding anything contained in this section the State Government may, if it is satisfied that it is necessary so to do in the public interest, by notification in the official Gazette, direct that in respect of such goods or classes of goods as may be mentioned in the notification and subject to such conditions as it may think fit to impose, no tax under this Act shall be payable by any dealer having his place of business in the State in respect of the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er it be under the State Act or under the Central Act. According to Mr. Agarwalla, section 15(b) of the Central Act envisages the statutory mandate that where two sets of tax have been levied in respect of the same goods once under the State Act and over again under the Central Act, the tax under the State Act becomes refundable. The notification operates in a different field, namely, where there has been an assessment under the State Act, a second set of tax under the Central Act is not to be levied. The notification, therefore, could not be challenged by referring to or relying upon section 15(b) of the Central Act. 4.. The Supreme Court pointed out in the case of State of Mysore v. Yaddalam Lakshmmarasimhiah Setty and Sons[1965] 16 S.T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Government notification, once identity of the goods is established and tax under the State Act has been levied, assessment under the Central Act is not to be made notwithstanding the fact that under section 6, the transaction incurred liability under the Central Act to be taxed. In view of the conceded position and, in our opinion rightly, that under the scheme only one set of tax is exigible in respect of declared goods, where the goods had already been taxed under the State Act, no useful purpose would indeed be served in making an assessment under the Central Act in respect of such goods when it enters the stream of inter-State trade or commerce. Completing assessment, collecting tax and allowing the refund thereof would be futile ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. On the analysis indicated above, we are inclined to take the view that reference to the aforesaid decisions is not necessary. In fact, none of them has directly dealt with a situation as here. 6.. Accordingly we would hold that the impugned notification is intra vires and enforceable and the three Bench decisions of this Court being Orissa Hides Trading Co. v. Sales Tax Officer, Sambalpur III Circle[1975] 35 S.T.C. 232., K. Narayana Kumandan Sons Co. v. Sales Tax Officer, Koraput II Circle[1975] 36 S.T.C. 374. , and Subudhi Krishna Murty Sons v. Sales Tax Officer, Koraput II Circle[1975] 36 S.T.C. 419., so far as they hold the notificacation to be bad are not correct decisions. They are, therefore, overruled. 7.. The impugned ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
