9911796707
TMI Blog1968 (8) TMI 121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les Tax Act, 1956 (74 of 1956), hereinafter called the Act. In respect of the year 1960-61 the assessee claimed a deduction on account of excise duty paid amounting to Rs. 2,17,744.20. The assessee also sought a deduction of commission amounting to Rs. 50,047.66. It further claimed that calculation of Central sales tax at 7% on the turnover of Rs, 27,382.01 was not correct. The departmental authorities as also the Appellate Tribunal decided against the assessee on all the aforesaid matters. The High Court held that in view of the ratio of the decision of this court in State of Mysore v. Yaddalam Lakshminarasimhiah Setty & Sons [1965] 16 S.T.C. 231., the turnover represented by the excise duty was liable to be deducted. As regards the matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ule 11(2) was as substituted by a notification dated June 2, 1961, and gives the amount which shall be deducted from the aggregate of sale price but even that does not include the deduction on account of payment of excise duty. Further the substituted sub-rule (2) is not relevant for our purposes as the controversy, in the present case, relates to a period prior to June 2, 1961. The contention of the learned Attorney-General is that the provisions of the Act were admittedly applicable to inter-State transactions of the nature which were entered into by the assessee and it would be the rules which would equally govern the determination of the taxable turnover and since rule 11(2) did not provide for any deduction on account of payment of ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... returns, appeals, reviews, revisions, references, penalties and compounding of offences, shall apply accordingly." The question which came up for decision in Yaddalam L. Setty's case [1965] 16 S.T.C. 231., was the true import and meaning of the expression "in the same manner" in section 9(2) as it stood before the enactment of Amending Act 31 of 1958, and which was in the same terms as sub-section (3) of section 9. This is what was said in the majority judgment in that case: "The expression 'in the manner' may give rise to two conflicting views, namely, (i) it is concerned only with the calculation of the tax, and (ii) it deals not only with the calculation of the rates but also the manner of levy of the tax. But section 9(1) dispels the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -sections (1) and (3) of section 9 of the Act the tax shall be levied and collected in the same manner as the tax on the sale or purchase of goods under the general sales tax law of the State is so paid and collected. The High Court while referring to the judgment of this court in Yaddalam L. Setty's case [1965] 16 S.T.C. 231., understood the observations in the majority judgment to uphold the contention raised on behalf of the assessee that in all respects the tax must be levied as envisaged by the general sales tax law of the State. The Madras High Court in S. Mariappa Nadar v. State of Madras [1962] 13 S.T.C. 371., had gone elaborately into the question of the applicability of the general sales tax law of the State in such ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
