TMI Blog2004 (12) TMI 657X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a registered dealer as a wholesaler at Bilaspur, which was a part of the State of the Madhya Pradesh before Madhya Pradesh Re-organisation Act, 2000 came into force. He has his place of business at the railway area, Bilaspur, which is not a local area as defined under the Entry Tax Act. The petitioner obtained certain cartons of cigarettes at the railway area (Maldhakka) and delivered the same to the retailers of Bilaspur, Ambikapur, Raigarh and Manendragarh. As the sale was effected at Maldhakka, the railway area, the petitioner, as pleaded by him, was not to be held liable for payment of the entry tax as there was no incidence of tax under section 3 of the Entry Tax Act. It was the case of the petitioner that the cigarettes sold to retail dealers of Rajnandgaon, Raipur, Dhamtari and Jagdalpur were consigned directly to these destinations from Bombay by the Golden Tobacco Company, Bombay. The bilties (M.T. Rs.) for the goods were sent to the petitioner at Maldhakka, who after receiving the bilties endorsed the same in favour of the dealers of Rajnandgaon, Raipur, Dhamtari and Raigarh. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld not be within the ambit of Entry Tax Act. He has also recorded a finding that the sale of bilties took place at Maldhakka, which is not a local area and judged from any spectrum, the petitioner would not be liable for entry tax. 6.. Questioning the correctness of the aforesaid judgment, Mr. S.K. Yadav, learned Government Advocate has submitted that in the case at hand, analysis made by the learned single Judge in the second spectrum, namely, that as the transaction had taken place within the railway area which is not the local area, therefore, it would not be covered under the conception of entry tax is correct but the law as has been laid down by the learned single Judge in paragraph 8 is not correct. Submission of Mr. Yadav is after the conclusion arrived at by the learned single Judge that mere transfer of title deeds in the local area would not invite the liability of imposition of entry tax and would not bring the dealer within the ambit of entry tax has not been correctly stated inasmuch as though goods actually are sent directly from the company, the deeds are transferred within the railway area and under this factual matrix the conception of nonliability has to be ost ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section reads as under: Section 11: Burden of proof. (1) The burden of proving (a) that a dealer or a person notified under sub-section (2) of section 3 has not effected the entry of any goods specified in Schedule II into a local area for consumption, use or sale therein; (b) that a dealer has not effected the entry of any goods specified in Schedule III or a person notified under sub-section (2) of section 3 has not effected the entry of any goods specified in Schedule III and notified under sub-section (2) of section 3 into a local area for consumption or use therein; (c) that a dealer is entitled to deduction in respect of purchase value of local goods for the purpose of the computation of taxable purchase value; (d) that goods purchased by a dealer in a local area from a person or a dealer who is not a registered dealer had not entered into that local area before they were purchased by him; (e) that a dealer, is entitled to any other deductions in computing the taxable quantum; (f) that a person has not effected the entry of the motor vehicle into a local area for consumption, use or sale therein; shall be on the dealer, or such person, as the case ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s by this Court. It is noteworthy to mention here that the manufacturing of goods within the municipal area is not the acid test. The real test is export of goods or transport from the manufacturing unit outside the limits of municipal area. The submission of Mr. Tankha is acceptable inasmuch as if the goods are to be exported by the rail or carried by the railways they have to be carried to the railway station. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that because they are carried by some vehicle from the manufacturing unit to the railway station terminal tax would be leviable. If such an interpretation is given acceptance, in my considered view entry 89 would be frustrated and entry 56 would be given the meaning beyond its comprehensive connotation. Entry 56 deals with goods 'carried by road'. In the case at hand, as has been stated above goods are taken out from the municipal area by rail. Hence, the terminal tax by the municipality cannot be imposed. 12.. We are conscious, in the aforesaid case, a different kind of dispute was involved but the fact remains that it was held therein, even though the goods are manufactured in the municipal area and transported by ve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
