TMI Blog1962 (1) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iable to be taxed under section 3(2) read with Schedule 1, entry 2(a), of that Act and under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, those goods are liable to tax under section 5(3) read with entry No. 7 in Schedule II of the Act had they been intra-State transactions. The charging section in the "Act", i.e., section 6, came into force on 1st July, 1957. Some of the provisions of the Act were amended on 1st October, 1958. In the course of this order, whenever reference is made to the "Act" it should be understood as referring to the provisions of the Act as they stood prior to 1st October, 1958 (the amending Act i.e., Act XXXI of 1958, which came into force on 1st October, 1958). Section 6 of the Act says: "Subject to the other provisions contained in the Act, every dealer shall, with effect from such date as the Central Government may, by notification, in the Official Gazette, appoint, not being earlier than thirty days from the date of such notification, be liable to pay tax under this Act on all sales effected by him in the course of inter-State trade or commerce during any year on and from the date so notified." Notification referred to in section 6 was issued on 26th March, 1957, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the same manner as would have been done if the sale had, in fact, taken place inside the appropriate State, and for the purpose of making any such calculation any such dealer shall be deemed to be a dealer liable to pay tax under the sales tax law of the appropriate State, notwithstanding that he, in fact, may not be so liable under that law" (underlining is ours).* The learned Government Pleader thinks that the contention of Shri Srinivasan would have had force if section 8 (2) had merely stated: "The tax payable by any dealer in any case not falling within subsection (1) in respect of the sale by him of any goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, shall be calculated at the same rate and in the same manner as would have been done if the sale had, in fact, taken place inside the appropriate State." But because of the remaining portion of that section, i.e., "and for the purpose of making any such calculation any such dealer shall be deemed to be dealer liable to pay tax under the sales tax law of the appropriate State notwithstanding that he, in fact, may not be so liable under that law", the pattern of taxation is changed while retaining the rate fixed under th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld be ordinarily a fraction of his total dealings. Therefore, the reason for fixing the minimum turnover for being liable to be taxed under the State tax law, i. e., being a petty trader, disappears. For the reasons mentioned above, we accept the interpretation placed by Shri Srinivasan on section 8(2). The learned Government Pleader lastly contended that if, for any reason, we think that the language employed in sub-section (2) of section 8 is ambiguous, we should take the aid of section 8(1) in interpreting section 8(2), so as to facilitate a harmonious construction. We would like to make it plain that we found no difficulty in interpreting section 8(2). But yet we shall proceed to consider the contentions raised by the learned Government Pleader as regards the scope of section 8(1) and its bearing on the interpretation of section 8(2). According to him a "dealer" who complies with the requirements laid down in section 8(1) read with section 8(3) has to pay tax at the rate mentioned in section 8(1), but if our interpretation of section 8(2) is correct then a "dealer" who does not comply with the requirements of section 8(1) read with section 8(3) would be in a better position ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e State, at a rate or rates which is or are lower than the rate specified in sub-section (1), the tax payable under the "Act" on the turnover in relation to the sale of such goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce is to be calculated at the lower rate. Hence, we see no incongruity between the provisions contained in section 8(1), and the provisions contained in section 8(2) as we have interpreted them. One other facet of the argument of the learned Government Pleader in this connection may also be noticed. He urged that the goods exempted under the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 8 are those goods which are "generally" exempt from taxation. According to him the word "generally " found in section 8(1) means "totally"; in other words, when that section speaks of goods "generally exempt from taxation" it refers to goods which are totally exempt from taxation as in the case of goods mentioned in Schedule V of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and not the goods, the sale of which is taxed at one point or the other. But according to Shri K. Srinivasan the proviso does not deal with goods as such but deals with sales. To us this controversy appears to be pointless. Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
