9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (11) TMI 366X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the material purchased by them is not consumed by them in the manufacture of other goods for sale, or otherwise, within the meaning of clause (a) in section 6-A. Learned counsel stated that all the three points are concluded by the decisions of this Court-the first two against the petitioners, and the third one in their favour. He brought to our notice that the constitutionality of section 6-A has been upheld by a Bench of this Court in Hindustan Milkfood Manufacturers Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1982] 51 STC 1, followed in Nandanam Construction Company v. Assistant Commissioner [1983] 53 STC 42. On the second question, the learned counsel submitted, the decision of the Bench in Nandanam Construction Company v. Assistant Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntioned in clauses (a), (b) and (c) must be satisfied before a purchaser can be made liable under the said provision. In this case, clauses (b) and (c) have no application. (The learned Government Pleader, however, contended that clause (b) is attracted, which argument we shall deal with later). It is only clause (a) which is said to be attracted. Clause (a)-read without being oppressed by any decision-contemplates the purchaser consuming the goods purchased by him either in the manufacture of other goods for sale, or consuming them otherwise. In this sense, the petitioners would be liable to pay the tax, inasmuch as they consume such goods otherwise than in the manufacture of other goods for sale. Counsel for the petitioners, however, ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chagla, that by section 7 the price paid for buying goods consumed in the manufacture of other goods, intended to be sold or otherwise disposed of, alone is taxable. We do not think that that is a reasonable interpretation of the expression 'either consumes such goods in the manufacture of other goods for sale or otherwise'. It is intended by the legislature that consumption of goods renders the price paid for their purchase taxable, if the goods are used in the manufacture of other goods for sale or if the goods are consumed otherwise." This decision is a clear authority against the proposition urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners. But the difficulty has arisen because of certain observations made by the Supreme Court in a su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontention of the petitioners. Relying upon these observations, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that since the material purchased by the petitioners from unregistered dealers is not consumed by them in the manufacture of any other goods for sale, nor in the manufacture of any other goods for purposes other than sale, section 6-A is not attracted. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes states that, while the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Ganesh Prasad Dixit v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1969] 24 STC 343 is a direct decision on the question, the observations in the later decision in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Pio Food Packers [1980] 46 STC 63 are mere obiter. He also submitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not a correct one, and that it requires reconsideration. He reiterates that, whereas the decision in Ganesh Prasad Dixit's case [1969] 24 STC 343 (SC) is a direct decision on the point, the observations in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Pio Food Packers [1980] 46 STC 63 (SC) are not only obiter dicta but are also made without referring to the earlier decision directly on the point. He says that the proper course for us in the circumstances is to refer the matter to a Full Bench to make an authoritative pronouncement upon his submission. Counsel for the petitioners, besides supporting the reasoning in Nandanam Construction Company's case [1983] 53 STC 42 (AP) submits that a reference to Full Bench is not called for, inasmuch as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he matter to a Full Bench. The proper course for the State may be to have the Special Leave Petition filed by it against the decision of this Court in [1983] 53 STC 42 (Nandanam Construction Company v. Assistant Commissioner) posted for admission and try to obtain a suspension of the said judgment. In our opinion the proper forum for explaining or resolving the conflict between the aforesaid two decisions of the Supreme Court is the Supreme Court itself. We may mention that the judgment in Nandanam Construction Company's case [1983] 53 STC 42 (AP) was rendered as far back as September, 1982. It is more than 5 years. If the State were really serious, they should have seen to it that their Special Leave Petition is posted for admission, and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
