2016 (7) TMI 1426

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ax Act, 1956 is relatable to the exemption of goods or the person selling it?'' The case pertains to the assessment year 1995-96. The facts as noticed in the statement of case are reproduced hereunder: ''M/s Siemens Telecom Limited, Now known as Bharti Systel Limited, Gurgaon is the registered dealer under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 as well as Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The firm is engaged in trading of Electronic Push Button Telephones manufactured by M/s Bharti Telecom Limited, Gurgaon. During the assessment year 1995-96 the appellant company purchased these goods from M/s Bharti Telecom Limited, Gurgaon as exempted goods and sold the same within the State of Haryana as well as in the course of inter state .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rtailed or restricted to the sales made by the manufacturer dealer and would not apply to the second or subsequent sales made by a trader, who buys the goods from the manufacturer-dealer and sells the same in the course of inter-state trade or commerce. It is pertinent to note that, clause (ii) of sub-rule (n) refers to sale of finished products in the course of inter-state trade or commerce where the finished products are manufactured by eligible industrial unit. There is no stipulation that only the first sale or the sale by the eligible industrial unit in Inter State or Trade would be exempt. The confusion arises, as it seems to us, in the proviso to the notification which states that the manufacturer-dealer should not have charged tax. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... first transaction by the eligible manufacturing dealer in the course by way of inter-state sale would be exempt but if the inter-state sale is made by trader/purchaser, the same would not be exempt. That will not be the correct understanding of the privies. Giving over due and extended implied interpretation to the proviso in the notification will nullify and unreasonably restrict the general and plain words of the main notification. Such construction is not warranted. 21. Quite apart from the above, Rule 28A(4) ( c) supports the interpretation and does not counter it. The said rule exempts all intra-state sales including subsequent sales. The reason for enacting this clause is obvious. The intention is to exempt all subsequent stages in t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X