9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (9) TMI 172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he delivery of the goods was thereafter taken by the endorsees. The petitioners effected sales of the value of Rs. 9,08,548.81 by this method. No tax under the Central Sales Tax Act appears to have been paid by the petitioners in this State, and accordingly, the Sales Tax Officer, Lucknow, issued notice under section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act treating the sales to be inter-State sales having been effected in this State, and imposed a tax of Rs. 18,170.98 on the petitioners. The petitioners thereafter filed the present petition challenging the jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer, Lucknow, to make the imposition. It now transpires that the petitioners have also preferred an appeal against the order of assessment. The main contention rais ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve a dealer who is not registered, from all liability for payment of tax in respect of such sales. This argument, if accepted, would lead to the startling result that, while a registered dealer would be liable to pay tax on such subsequent sale, the dealer who is not so registered, would be completely absolved from any such liability. This would be plainly against the scheme of the Act, inasmuch as in fixing the rate of tax under section 8 of the Act, a registered dealer pays lower rates than that paid by an unregistered dealer. This argument as such must fail. The question as to whether the authorities in this State had the jurisdiction to impose the tax in question now needs consideration. The provision fixing the jurisdiction of the par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the levy and collection of the tax, on the State where the movement of the goods commenced, and so the determinative test for discovering the jurisdiction of a particular State, is the place where the movement of the goods commenced. The words "appropriate Government" given in sub-section (3) of that section must necessarily refer to the State which by section 9(1) has been conferred jurisdiction to levy and collect the tax. The definition of the words "appropriate Government" as contained in section 2(a) cannot be applied to section 9 without creating an inconsistency. It is well settled that a definition clause has to give way to the substantive provision of the Act, in a case where the adoption of the meaning given in such a clause is in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the time when the petitioners effected the second sale, and the probability in the circumstances was that the goods were, at that point of time in this State, and as such the Sales Tax Officer could validly make the assessment order. This argument appears to us to be misconceived, for if the goods were in this State, the sales admittedly having been effected to parties resident here, the sales would be taxable not under the Central Sales Tax Act but under the U.P. Sales Tax Act and as such, the Sales Tax Officer would have no jurisdiction at all to proceed under the Central Sales Tax Act. It is thus clear that inasmuch as the movement of the goods commenced in Bihar, it was the State of Bihar which could levy and collect the impugned ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
