TMI Blog1972 (10) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MOHAN REDDY P. AND KHANNA H.R. JJ. N.D. Karkhanis, Senior Advocate (O.P. Rana, Advocate, with him), for the appellant. Shiv Poojan Singh, Advocate, for the respondent. -------------------------------------------------- The judgment of the court was delivered by HEGDE, J.- These appeals by special leave arise from the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Sales Tax Reference No. 297 of 1967 on its file. In that case the High Court was considering a reference under section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act"). The question referred for the opinion of the High Court was: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessee acting as commission ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nover relating to sale of khandsari sugar in view of section 3 of the Act. The only question that calls for an answer is whether in view of the notification referred to earlier, he is not liable to pay the tax in question. The notification so far as it is material for our purpose reads thus: "In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (U.P. Act No. 15 of 1948), as amended from time to time the Governor of Uttar Pradesh is pleased to supersede, with effect from April 1, 1960, all the previous notifications so far as they relate to the goods mentioned in column 2 of the Schedule hereto and the rates of sales tax given in such notifications, and declare that, with effect from April 1, 1960, the tur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are liable to be brought to tax under the notification. The notification referred to earlier, in our opinion, takes the present case outside the scope of section 3 of the Act. The sales effected by the commission agent in view of that notification must be considered as sales by the manufacturer himself. Consequently, it is only the manufacturer that could have been taxed in respect of the turnover relating to those sales and not the commission agent. Mr. Karkhanis, the learned counsel for the appellant, relied on certain decisions rendered by some of the High Courts, namely, Irri Veera Raju and Others v. Commercial Tax Officer, Tadepalligudem and Another', Ramalakshmana Company and Another v. State of Madras [1968] 21 S.T.C. 35., and Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
