9911796707
TMI Blog1960 (9) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, Baroda, made an order assessing the petitioner to a purchase tax under section 14, sub-section (6), of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 (Bom. Act III of 1953) for the period April 1, 1954, to September 29, 1955. The petitioner contends that this assessment was illegal inasmuch as these transactions are purchases "outside the State of Bombay" within the meaning of Article 286(1)(a) of the Constitution read with the Explanation and also because these transactions took place in the course of inter-State trade and commerce within the meaning of Article 286(2) of the Constitution. It was also urged that the provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, do not authorise the imposition, levy or collection of any purchase tax on the transactions in question. It appears that against this assessment order made by the Sales Tax Officer on October 18, 1955, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Assistant Collector of Sales Tax. This officer set aside the order of the Sales Tax Officer imposing a penalty under section 16(4) but dismissed the appeal against the order of assessment to tax. The order in appeal was made on November 26, 1957. The present petition was filed on August 4, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nly the mention of specific goods can amount to specification and mention of goods in such general language as "all goods other than those specified from time to time in Schedule A and in the preceding entries" cannot be said to be a specification of goods. We are unable to accept this argument. While it is true that mention of specific goods is specification for the purpose of section 10 as also for the purpose of sections 8 and 9 of the Act, we see no reason to think that mention of goods in a general way as "all goods other than those specified from time to time in Schedule A and in the preceding entries" of Schedule B itself is not a specification. We are of opinion that the entry 80 in Schedule B is a specification of goods within the meaning of section 10 and as bidi tobacco which the petitioner purchased is not within either Schedule A or any of the earlier entries in Schedule B, purchase tax under section 10 is leviable on these purchases, at the rate mentioned against entry 80. This brings us to the petitioner's main contention that the purchases took place outside the State of Bombay. The contention as stated in para. 11 of the petition is that the purchases would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y different articles...................." There was no further affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner to traverse the averments of the respondents that the raw tobacco is converted into bidi patti before it is despatched outside Bombay State and that the market value of raw tobacco and bidi patti differs. Mr. Pathak also conceded at the hearing the correctness of the statement that anybody could go to the market to purchase the article known as raw tobacco or akho bhuko and that he could also go and purchase from the market the article known as bidi patti. That itself is sufficient proof that raw tobacco and bidi patti are distinct and different commercial articles. It is the background of these facts that we have to consider the question whether tobacco was delivered in the State of Bombay for consumption in that State. In answering that question it is unnecessary and indeed inexpedient to attempt an exhaustive definition of the word "consumption" as used in the Explanation to Article 286 of the Constitution. The act of consumption with which people are most familiar occurs when they eat, or drink or smoke. Thus, we speak of people consuming bread, or fish or meat or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aking of wearing apparel. The final product-the wearing apparel-is ultimately consumed by men, women and children in using it as dress. In the absence of any words to limit the connotation of the word "consumption" to the final act of consumption, it will be proper to think that the Constitution-makers used the word to connote any kind of user which is ordinarily spoken of as consumption of the particular commodity. Reverting to the instance of cotton, mentioned above, it will be proper to hold that when raw cotton is delivered in State A for being ginned in that State, it is delivered for consumption in State A; when ginned cotton is delivered in State B for being spun into yarn, it is delivered for consumption in State B; when yarn is delivered in State C for being woven into cloth in that State, it is delivered for consumption in State C; when woven cloth is delivered in State D for being made by tailor in that State into wearing apparel there is delivery of cloth for consumption in State D; and finally when wearing apparel is delivered in State E for being sold as dress in that State, it is delivery of wearing apparel for consumption in State E. Except at the final stag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Report. We are not aware of any case where such use of a commodity has been held not to amount to consumption. It must therefore be held on the facts of this case that when tobacco was delivered in the State of Bombay for the purpose of changing it into a commercially different article, viz., bidi patti, the delivery was for the purpose of consumption. The purchases in this case therefore fall within the meaning of Explanation to Article 286(1)(a) and must be held to have taken place inside the State of Bombay. There remains for consideration the objection that the transactions took place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce within the meaning of Article 286(2) of the Constitution and the levy of tax was therefore prohibited by the provisions thereof. Even if these transactions were in the course of inter-State trade, the bar of Article 286(2) of the Constitution stands removed by the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, for the entire period up to September 6, 1955. The levy of tax for the period September 7, 1955, to September 29, 1955, would be illegal if these transactions are in the course of inter-State trade. The petitioner's counsel however informed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
