9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (10) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. S. Gopalakrishnan, Advocate, with him), for the respondent in C.A. Nos. 2550-2551 of 1969, 1355-1356 of 1970 and 1292- 1293 of 1973. A. Abdul Karim and K. Rajendra Choudhary, Advocates, for the respondents in C.A. Nos. 1366, 1850-1853 and 1858-1861 of 1969. -------------------------------------------------- The judgment of the court was delivered by ALAGIRISWAMI, J.-These appeals raise the question of the validity of section 2(1) of Madras Act 37 of 1964. That section reads as follows: "Special provisions in respect of tax on sale of dressed hides and skins in certain cases.-Notwithstanding anything contained in the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 (Madras Act IX of 1939) (hereinafter referred to as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e amount for which they are sold by him. (ii) In the case of tanned hides or skins which have been tanned within the State, the tax under section 3(1) shall be levied from a person who is the first dealer in such hides or skins not exempt from taxation under section 3(3) on the amount for which they are sold by him; Provided that, if he proves that the tax has already been levied under sub-rule (1) on the untanned hides and skins out of which the tanned hides and skins had been produced, he shall not be so liable." This rule was struck down by this court on the ground that where a tanner buys raw hides and skins inside the State and sells them after tanning he pays the tax only on the purchase price of raw hides and skins whereas a deale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as State was one and nine- sixteenth per cent. As this section provides a uniform rate of two per cent for sales during the whole of the period between April 1, 1955, and March 31, 1959, it was struck down by this court in A. Hajee Abdul Shukoor & Co. v. State of Madras [1964] 15 S.T.C. 719 (S.C.); [1964] 8 S.C.R. 217., on the ground that for the period from April 1, 1955, to March 31, 1957, there was discrimination between a tanner who tans from raw hides and skins purchased inside the State who would pay only one and nine-sixteenth per cent on the raw hides and skins purchased by him and a tanner who purchased skins and hides from outside the State who would have to pay at the rate of two per cent under this section. It is to get over thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s purchased outside the State. Thus there is no discrimination between the sellers of tanned hides and skins whether the raw hides and skins out of which they were tanned were purchased inside the State or outside the State. The tax is not levied even in the case of raw hides and skins imported from another State but on hides and skins tanned from those raw hides and skins. Only the tax is levied on the amount for which the raw skins and hides were purchased. This amount is used only for the purpose of quantification of the tax. The tax is not on the purchase of the raw hides and skins. We do not, therefore, see how the tax levied on the sale of tanned hides and skins contravenes article 286 of the Constitution. Actually as the value of hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
