TMI Blog1968 (8) TMI 158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een raised before us by the counsel for the appellant that rule 6 was not applicable. It has therefore only to be seen as to who would be a person who in the State would be the first dealer in such goods. It appears to us that the person to be the first dealer has to be in the State and not outside the State. - Civil Appeal No. 2256, & 2257 of 1966 - - - Dated:- 28-8-1968 - SHAH J.C. AND RAMASWAMI V. AND GROVER A.N. JJ. B.R.L. Iyengar, Senior Advocate (M.R.K. Pillani, Advocate, with him), for the respondent. Sardar Bahadur, Vishnu Bahadur Saharya and Miss Yougindra Ksushalani, Advocates, for the appellant. -------------------------------------------------- The judgment of the court was delivered by GROVER, J. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Constitution which was granted. The charging section 3, at the relevant time, read as follows: "3. Levy of taxes on sales of goods.-(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act- (a) Every dealer shall pay for each year a tax on his total turnover for such year; and (b) the tax shall be calculated at the rate of three pies for every Indian rupee in such turnover. (2) Subject as aforesaid, the sale of any of the goods mentioned below shall be subject to a tax at the rate specified in respect thereof, at such single point in the series of sales by successive dealers as may be prescribed; and the tax shall be paid by the dealer concerned on his turnover in each year relating to such goods, and shall be in addition to the tax to which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be subject to the tax specified in that sub-section at the stage of sale by the person who in the State is the first dealer in such goods, who is not exempt from taxation under section 3(3)." It has been contended that the Tribunal gave a finding that the sales to the assessee by the non-resident dealers fell within the explanation to article 286(1)(a) of the Constitution. According to the explanation, a sale or purchase was to be deemed to have taken place in the State in which the goods had actually been delivered as a direct result of such sale or purchase for the purpose of consumption in the State. It is submitted that all the sales made by the non-resident dealers to the assessee must be deemed to have taken place in the erstwhile S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the matter: "A reading of rule 6 which was fixing a point of taxation for the additional tax under section 3(2) of the Act, however, does not indicate that the point was being fixed with a view to future parliamentary legislation under article 286(2) of the Constitution or only for the limited period of less than a year between the 30th day of May, 1950, and the 31st day of March, 1951. In these circumstances, we think we should hold that 'explanation sales' are not within the purview of that rule and that the first sales specified is the first inter-State sale by a dealer like the petitioner who is not exempt from taxation under section 3(3) of the Act." It is not necessary to discuss whether the above view expressed by the High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t case inasmuch as the non-resident dealer had entered into most of the contracts with firms in Fort Cochin which was part of the Madras State and the goods were deliverable and actually delivered to the purchaser in that place. No such contention appears to have been advanced, in the present case, at any stage and, for that reason, no finding could be given by the departmental authorities about the magnitude of the transactions or con- tracts made by those dealers with persons in the erstwhile State of Travancore-Cochin. The appellant can hardly derive any assistance from the aforesaid decision of this court. No other point has been raised before us, with the result that the appeals fail and are dismissed with costs. (One hearing fee). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
