9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (1) TMI 339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see, a registered dealer. The goods were originally purchased in Government auction by Rajendrakumar Bakarbhai Patel who was then an unregistered dealer who paid sales tax at ordinary rate on that occasion. Rajendrakumar sold the goods to the assessee. Even at that time Rajendrakumar was an unregistered dealer. In other words, though the assessee is a registered dealer, he made purchases from an unregistered dealer who, in his time, paid sales tax. The question is whether sale price on these goods is to be deducted from the taxable turnover. The first appellate authority held in favour of the Revenue, but the Appellate Tribunal held in favour of the assessee. At the instance of the Revenue, the question of law has been referred. 3.. The r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee purchased is registered or not, is not relevant and what is relevant is whether somewhere along the line of transactions, a registered dealer has paid the tax. The Division Bench rejected this contention on the ground that in a taxing statute, one has to look merely at what is clearly said, and there is no room for any intendment and there is no equity about tax. Nothing is to be read in nothing is to be implied. 5.. The Appellate Tribunal placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Mulakh Raj Nand Lal [1982] 50 STC 101. The Supreme Court considered the language used in section 5(1-A) and the proviso thereto of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. Section 5(1-A) and the proviso read as follows: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lers is not entitled to have his sales to his consumers exempted from sales tax. Admittedly, the manufacturer, himself a registered dealer, when he sold the goods to the unregistered dealers had issued the necessary certificates and had undertaken the liability to pay sales tax on the sales effected by him-such sales being the sales at the first stage under clause (b) of the notification dated March 30, 1966. The respondent-assessee had produced the certificates to support his claim that he was not liable to pay any sales tax on the sales effected by him of the very goods to his consumers, the same being claimed as subsequent sales effected by him. In our view, the Division Bench of the High Court rightly held that the respondent's sales to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2(r)(ii) of the Act in question. In this case also the words (after omitting the unnecessary words) are "sale price of goods which have been purchased from a registered dealer". Section 2(r)(ii) reflects the principle of single point sales tax and reading the provision in consonance with this principle, it must follow that the registered dealer need not be the dealer from whom the assessee purchased the goods, but could be the dealer from whom the goods were originally purchased or were purchased at the first stage. The decision in Laxman Chhotelal's case (1979) 12 VKN 253 cannot be regarded as laying down good law in view of the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Mulakh Raj Nand Lal's case [1982] 50 STC 101. 7.. The question is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
