9911796707
TMI Blog1968 (8) TMI 158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant to payment of additional sales tax under section 3(2) of the General Sales Tax Act (Act No. 11 of 1125 M.E.) (originally Travancore- Cochin Act of 1950) as amended in 1951, hereinafter called "the Act", in respect of sales of tobacco made by the appellant in the erstwhile State or Travancore-Cochin out of purchases from dealers outside that State for the assessment years 1953-54 and 1954-55. The assessee, who is the appellant, was a dealer in tobacco at Trivandrum in the erstwhile State of Travancore-Cochin during the years mentioned above. He made purchases of tobacco from dealers outside that State. The assessing authority as also the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax held that the assessee was liable to be taxed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ½ annas (3) A dealer whose total turnover in any year is less than ten thousand Indian rupees shall not be liable to pay any tax for that year under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2). (4) For the purposes of this section and the other provisions of this Act, turnover shall be determined in accordance with such rules as may be prescribed. (5) The taxes under sub-sections (1) and (2) shall be assessed, levied and collected in such manner and in such instalments, if any, as may be prescribed: Provided that- (i) in respect of the same transaction of sale, the buyer or the seller but not both, as determined by such rules as may be prescribed, shall be taxed; (ii) where a dealer has been taxed in respect of the purchase of any goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that the sale shall be subject to the tax specified in sub-section (2) of section 3 at the stage of sale by the person who in the State was the first dealer in such goods. Therefore, according to the appellant he was not the first dealer and it was the non-resident or the seller in each transaction who was liable to the payment of tax. The High Court relied on certain decisions, namely, Sundararamier Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh[1958] 9 S.T.C. 298., and State of Kerala v. Cochin Coal Company Ltd. [1961] 12 S.T.C. 1., and was of the view that according to these decisions the Act imposed or authorised the imposition of a tax on the sale or purchase of goods where such sale or purchase took place in the course of inter-State trade or comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the following critical words of rule 6: "by the person who in the State is the first dealer in such goods". No contention has been 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. This is the plain and grammatical meaning which can be attributed to the words "by the person who in the State is the first dealer in such goods" and we have not been persuaded to depart from the normal canons of interpretation by giving any other meaning to these words. We also find it difficult to accede t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
