TMI Blog1972 (7) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase. - C.A. Nos. 323, To 332, & 1312, 1174 of 1969, 1518 of 1970, & 2117 of 1970, W.P. Nos. 2956, 1798, 1931, 2312, 2313, 3372, 3740, 3964, 3965, 4088, 3386, 2396 of 1968, & 3501 of 1968, 4034 of 1970 - - - Dated:- 21-7-1972 - RAY A.N., DUA I.D., PALEKAR D.G. AND BEG M.H. JJ. P. Basi Reddy, Senior Advocate (A.V.V. Nair, Advocate, with him), for the respondent in C.A. No. 1518 of 1970. P. Basi Reddy, Senior Advocate (P. Parameswara Rao, Advocate, with him), for the respondent in C.A. No. 2117 of 1970. B.V. Subramanyam, Senior Advocate (G. Narayana Rao, Advocate, with him), for the appellant in C.A. Nos. 323 and 1312 of 1969. P. Basi Reddy, Senior Advocate (B. Parthasarathy, Advocate, with him), for the responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sells groundnuts, or, whether groundnuts were purchased specifically only for purposes of crushing them and converting them into oil or into any other product or for the purpose of sale as well. They have merely questioned the validity of item 6 of Schedule Ill of the Act by reason of alleged conflict with section 15 of the Central Act so that all we need do is to set out the two provisions and give our reasons for our conclusions. We have already dismissed the appeals after hearing them. We now proceed to record our reasons. Item 6 of Schedule III reads as follows: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Description of goods Point of levy Rate of tax ------------------------------------------- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the Act could include what is more than the sale price as defined by the Central Act, so that the rate may exceed the limit imposed by section 15(a) of the Central Act. We are, therefore, no longer concerned with the question of rate but only with that part of item 6, Schedule III, which makes millers other than decorticating millers liable to pay the tax when they purchase groundnuts. It is contended that the groundnuts purchased by the appellants would be taxed at the point of purchase by them and also again in the hands of "last dealers" to whom they may sell. The short answer to this argument could be that the validity of the levy of a tax upon a purchase by a last dealer could be questioned by one of the appellants only if he wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve as soon as the sale in the case of sales tax and purchase in the case of purchase tax is made, though the liability of the dealer can be computed only at the end of the year. The incurring of the charge is one thing and its computation is a totally different thing. Hence the turnover relating to the purchases with which we are concerned in these appeals became charged with the liability to pay tax as soon as those purchases were made by the assessee-millers. To restate the position, whenever a miller purchases groundnut, the turnover relating to that purchase becomes exigible to tax subject to such exemptions as may be given under the Act. This means that as soon as a first miller purchases groundnuts, the turnover relating to that purch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Hence, we need not go into the question as to what would be the position in law where a miller purchases some groundnut for milling and the rest for sale." In the cases before us also we need not consider the position of a miller who purchases some groundnuts for milling and the rest for sale. It is clear that each of the appellants becomes liable to the payment of tax as a purchasing miller just as a last dealer would be liable on the purchases made by him. Hence, the last dealer and the miller, who purchases presumably to convert the groundnuts into other products, are placed on an equal footing. We were not satisfied that there is a possibility of double taxation or of taxation of the same product at more than one point of purchase ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
