LAWS(SC)-1961-3-12

ENDUPURI NARASIMHAM AND SON Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

Decided On March 14, 1961
ENDUPURI NARASIMHAM AND SON Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ORISSA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a joint Hindu family firm carrying on business at Berhampur in the State of Orissa, and registered as a dealer under the provisions of the Orissa Sales Tax Act. 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act. Its business consists in the purchases of castor seeds, turmeric, gingili and other commodities locally, and selling them to dealers outside the State. The Sales Tax Officer, Berhampur, included in the taxable turnover of the petitioner the purchase of goods made by it inside the State but sold, as aforesaid, to dealers outside the State and imposed a tax of Rs. 27,161-13-0 on account of such sales during the sixteen quarters commencing from April 1, 1952, and ending with March 31, 1956. In the present application filed under Art. 32, the petitioner challenges the validity of the tax on the ground that the purchases in question were made in the course of inter-State trade, and that a tax thereon was in contravention of Art 286(2).

(2.) The impugned tax has been levied under S. 5 of the Act, which, omitting what is not relevant, runs as follows:-

(3.) It will be seen that under this section when a sale takes place, the seller has to include it in his taxable turnover; but when the sale is to a registered dealer who declares that his purchases are for resale in Orissa, then it is excluded from the seller's turnover. If the registered dealer-purchaser sells the goods outside the State in breach of the condition, the purchasers by him are liable to be included in his turnover, and assessed to sales tax. That precisely is what has happened in this case. The sales to the petitioner were not included in the taxable turnover of the sellers by reason of the registration certificate which the petitioner had obtained on a declaration that the goods were to be resold in Orissa. But in violation of this declaration he sold the goods to dealers outside the State, and so he became liable to be taxed under S. 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Act.