9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 758X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the constitutional validity of the aforesaid Section. At the time of hearing of the petition, this point was not pressed by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in view of the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Hotel Balaji and others, etc. etc. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others reported in AIR 1993 SC 1048 wherein similar provisions in the Sales Tax Acts of other States have been upheld. The admitted facts are that the petitioner is a dealer and purchases maize from agriculturists. The case of the petitioner firm is that it receives orders from its principal M/s Sukhjit Starch and Chemicals Limited, Phagwara, to purchase maize. The principal sends the packing material as well as trucks to transport the maize. The pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act purchases any goods other than those specified in Schedule "B" from any source, and- (i) uses them within the State in the manufacture of goods specified in Schedule "B", or (ii) uses them within the State in the manufacture of goods, other than those specified in Schedule "B", and sends the goods so manufactured outside the state in any manner otherwise than by way of sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or in the course of export out of the territory of India, or (iii) uses such goods for a purpose other than that of resale within the State or sale in the course of inter- State trade or commerce or in the course of export out of the territory of India, or (iv) sends them outside the State in any manner other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ambiguity in the wording of the Section. The language is absolutely clear. The only interpretation which can be given is that Section 5-A applies to goods other than those mentioned in Schedule B. The only exceptions are provided in the clauses of the section itself . Under Clause (i) the goods, not being goods specified in Schedule B, but used to manufacture goods specified in Schedule B would then be liable to pay tax in terms of sub-clause I of the said section. Reliance on behalf of the State has been placed on clause (iv) of the Section and it has been strenuously urged on behalf of the State that since the goods have been sent outside the State of Himachal Pradesh otherwise then by way of sale in the course of inter State trade, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer had accepted the fact that the petitioner has purchased the maize on behalf of M/s Sukhjit Starch & Chemicals Ltd., it is obvious that the maize was purchased by the petitioner as an agent of M/s Sukhjit Starch & Chemicals Ltd. The maize was purchased directly from the farmer and as such was exempt from payment of tax in terms of Section 7 of the Act. Even if the converse situation is accepted and it is found that the petitioner purchased the maize on his own behalf and thereafter sold it outside the State, then also no tax would be leviable in view of the fact that then it would amount to an inter State sale and the incidence of tax would arise on the goods being sold and sent outside the State of Himachal Pradesh. Grea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
