TMI Blog1991 (3) TMI 354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oreign buyers in the converted form. Being of the opinion, that purchase of the raw bones from the villagers, who were non-registered dealers, and the sale of the bone-meal to the foreign buyers after "consuming" the bones by the method of crushing and converting, attracted the levy of purchase tax under section 7-A(1)(a) of the Act, the assessee was subjected to the levy of tax in respect of the purchases of the bones made from the unregistered dealers. Ultimately the total taxable turnover of the assessee was determined by the assessing officer at Rs. 18,09,478. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The appellate authority, after relying upon the law laid down in T.A. Nos. 1345 of 1978, 220 and 221 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was, accordingly, redetermined as Rs. 16,75,182 and found as assessable at 4 per cent. The assessee went up in further appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, while the Revenue also filed a petition for enhancement. The Tribunal, vide order dated 8th of December, 1980, partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee while dismissing the enhancement petition filed by the Revenue. 3.. The Tribunal considered the disputed addition to the turnover under section 7-A of the Act and relying upon the decision of this Court reported in Thangiah Nadar v. State of Tamil Nadu [1980] 46 STC 67, wherein it had been held that where the goods were in the State either at the time when the contract was made or at any rate at the time when the appr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t covered by the exception contained in clause (c) of section 7-A(1), relating to the sale or purchase in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. Learned Government Advocate submitted that the judgment rendered by this Court in Ponnu Saw Mills v. State of Tamil Nadu [1980] 45 STC 291 which was rendered on 22nd November, 1979, squarely governs the case and that the Tribunal fell in error in holding that section 7-A of the Act was not attracted. 4.. Section 7-A(1)(b) and section 7-A(1)(c) deal with two distinct situations. Sub-clause (b) of section 7-A(1) would be attracted where the assessee disposes of the goods, covered by the section, in any manner "other than by sale" in the State while sub-clause (c) of section 7-A(1) contemplate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould be attracted as it has been found that there was a despatch of the crushed bones to a place outside the State of Tamil Nadu and that the said despatch was not in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. Learned counsel for the assessee could not support the order of the Tribunal in the face of the judgment in Ponnu Saw Mills v. State of Tamil Nadu [1980] 45 STC 291 (Mad.). We, therefore, hold that the transaction in the instant case would fall within clause (c) of section 7-A(1) of the Act and the order of the Tribunal as well as the appellate authority holding otherwise, cannot be sustained. Those orders are consequently set aside. The order of the assessing authority is, therefore, restored. Both the tax cases are decided accordi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
