TMI Blog1987 (8) TMI 421X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (2)(A)(a)(ii) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947?" 2.. As revealed from the statement of the case by the Tribunal, the assessee is a dealer registered under the Act. It claimed deduction of Rs. 2,26,781.77 as sale to other registered dealers under section 5(2)(A)(a)(ii) of the Act in respect of the year 1977-78. The claim of the dealer was not accepted by the assessing officer since the relevant declarations of the purchasing dealer in statutory form No. XXXIV in support of its claim, were not produced before the assessing officer. Having failed both in the first appeal and second appeal, the assessee prayed for a reference which was allowed. 3.. The only contention of Mr. B. Agarwala, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that in o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stered dealer constitute a series and levy of tax at each point in the series would violate section 8. In support of his contention, Mr. Agarwala relied upon the decision of this Court reported in [1987] 67 STC 193; [1987] 1 SLR 297 (Chhatriya Trading Co. v. State of Orissa), I am not able to appreciate how this decision is of any assistance to Mr. Agarwala. In this decision, the dealer paid tax on the commodities to different Sales Tax Officers and produced receipts. In the aforesaid facts, it was observed: "But in view of the fact that under the scheme of the Act multi-point tax is not intended, we feel inclined to hold that the dealer should be entitled to claim adjustment of taxes which are paid for the same commodities by him at plac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from Ashok Service Centre v. State of Orissa [1983] 53 STC 1 (SC) which has been referred to in Chhatriya Trading Co.-Ed. they reach the consumer which would be the natural result of a multi-point levy of sales tax and also to make collection of sales tax more convenient. Even though the language of section 8 of the principal Act by itself was sufficient to prevent a multi-point levy and to prescribe a single point levy in order to emphasise the principle of single point levy of tax, section 4(1) of the principal Act was expressly made subject to section 8." From the aforesaid observations as well as the scheme of the Act, it is clear that the selling dealer cannot be made liable more than once on a single transaction of sale in his hand. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transactions, the legislature provided that the selling dealer would not be liable to be taxed on a transaction of sale to another registered dealer if the goods to be sold to the purchasing dealer is mentioned in the certificate of registration of the purchasing dealer for being purchased without payment of tax to the selling dealer. This is not the only precondition. The purchasing dealer is to furnish a declaration to the selling dealer in the statutory form No. XXXIV to that effect. It is the liability of the selling dealer to be satisfied that the goods to be sold is incorporated in the purchasing dealer's certificate of registration. Where the assessing officer finds that the goods sold was not mentioned in the certificate of registra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ember that language is at best an imperfect instrument for the expression of human intention. It is well to remember the warning administered by Judge Learned Hand that one should not make a fortress out of dictionary but remember that statute always have some purpose or object to accomplish and sympathetic and imaginative discovery is the surest guide to their meaning." However, keeping the object of the legislation to augment revenue of the State and also to protect the consumer as has been held in [1987] 67 STC 193 (Orissa); (1987) 1 SLR 297 (Chhatriya Trading Co. v. State of Orissa). I find that section 8 and section 5 supplement each other and are not inconsistent. As has been held by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision (Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6.. Mr. Agarwala relied upon the decision in O.J.C. No. 474 of 1979 (Ali Husein v. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack I East Circle) decided on 22nd April, 1987 (unreported)* and submitted that this Court has interpreted the provision in section 5(2)(A)(a)(ii) liberally in permitting the assessee to furnish the declaration in form No. XXXIV other than the one supplied by the purchasing dealer. In the said decision, it has been clearly held that to get deduction under section 5(2)(A)(a)(ii) the selling dealer is to furnish the declaration in form No. XXXIV whether it is the original or either of the counterfoil or duplicate. The language of the section permits such interpretation. To further liberalise the scope as suggested by Mr. Agarwala would b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
