INTERNATIONAL COTTON CORPN PRIVATE LIMITED H BASAPPA RALLIS INDIA LIMITED Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER HUBLI :COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER:COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of the judgment of the High Court of Mysore dismissing a batch of writ petitions filed by a number of dealers in the State of Mysore (now Karnataka) questioning the levy of sales tax under the Central Sales Tax Act on certain inter-State sales. The goods dealt with were all declared goods and under the Mysore Sales Tax Act they were taxable at the point of purchase at a single point. The assessment periods are prior to 10th November 1964. The importance of this date will become clear when we proceed to deal with the matter subsequently. The assessing authorities assessed all these transactions of inter-State sales to tax. This Court delivered its judgment in what is known as Yaddalam's case, (supra) holding that where a certain transaction was not liable to sales tax if it were an intra-State sale under the Sales Tax Law of the appropriate State, it would not be liable to sales tax if it were an inter,State sale. Following this decision the assessment orders were rectified giving effect to the judement. To set aside the effect of this decision sub-s. (1A) was inserted in Section 6 and a consequential amendment was made in sub-s. (2A) of Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act. After this the assessing authorities again rectified the assessment orders and brought to tax the inter-State sales.

(2.) Before this Court the validity of Section 8 (2) (a) as well as Section 6 (1A) of the Central Sales Tax Act read with Section 10 of the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1969 is questioned. In the alternative it is argued that even after the amendment these transactions are not liable to sales tax. The rectification orders are also impugned on the ground:

(3.) The first contention regarding the unconstitutionality of S. 8 (2) (a) is sought to be based on the decision of this Court in G. Rayon Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd. v. Asst. Commr. 33 SIC 219 - (AIR 1974 SC 1660= 1974 Tax LR 2017) dealing with the constitutionality of, section 8 (2) (b). We consider that far from supporting the appellants that decision actually is against the contention put forward on behalf of the appellants. It is only necessary to set out what this Court said in that decision. It is hardly necessary to add anything more. In that case the majority while upholding the validity of Section 8 (2) (b) observed: