1970 (3) TMI 125

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... having been purchased and sold in Mysore State. The said return filed by the petitioner was found to be correct by the assessing authority after check of his accounts. The assessing authority however found that the net turnover of Rs. 19,688.95 included a turnover of Rs. 7,202.90 being the sales turnover of goods purchased in Mysore State against 'C' form declarations and sold within the State of Madras. Since the petitioner had opted to pay the tax under section 7, the tax payable under section 3(1) was computed on the total turnover of Rs. 19,688.95 apart from the tax payable by the dealer, under section 5 of the Act at 3% on the turnover of Rs. 7,202.90. The petitioner has questioned the validity of the assessment order on various gro .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tax under section 7 is only in lieu of the tax leviable under section 3(1) and not in lieu of the tax leviable under any other provision of the Act. Section 7 gives an option to an assessee to pay tax at the rates specified therein based on his total turnover, instead of paying an ad valorem tax as provided in section 3(1) and this section does not concern itself with the tax leviable under section 5 at all. Of course for the purpose of levy under section 7 it is the total turnover of the dealer that matters and not his taxable turnover, while section 3(1) levies tax only on the taxable turnover. From the mere fact that the total turnover of an assessee is taken for the purpose of levying tax under section 7 it is not possible to say that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tion 5 is only intended to refer to the goods in respect of which different rates of tax are levied and that it would be inappropriate to say that a dealer coming under section 5 is being taxed really under section 3 of the Act. As pointed out by the learned Judges in that case section 5 is a special charging section and the expression "notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1) of section 3" removes the case of such a dealer from the ambit of section 3 and when tax is levied under section 5, it cannot be assumed that the dealer is taxed under section 3 so as to attract section 7. Having regard to the view we have expressed on the relative scope of sections 3, 5 and 7 of the Act, the petitioner's contention has to fail. The writ p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X