STATE OF ANDHRA Vs. M SANNAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Hon'ble The Chief Justice. This is a revision filed by the State of Andhra against the order of the Andhra Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Guntur. The facts are simple. The respondent was a licensed dealer carrying on business in raw hides and skins at Konakondla in Andhra State. He was assessed to sales tax for the year 1951-52 on a turnover of Rs. 11,527-8-5 being the purchase value of the raw hides and skins sold by him through his commission agents at Bangalore. Out of the total turnover, turnover to the extent of Rs. 9499-15-8 represented his transactions of outright sales to persons in Bangalore whereas the balance related to the raw hides and skins sent by him to his commission agents at Bangalore who sold them in Mysore State on his account. He was assessed under the provisions of the Turnover and Assessment Rule 16 (2) (ii) being the last purchaser in the series of sales of the goods affected in Andhra State. The Tribunal held that the transactions in respect of Rs. 9499-15-8 would attract the provisions of Rule 16 (2) (ii) of the Turnover and Assessment Rules, but the balance of the total turnover would not be governed by the said provision as there were no sales in respect thereof for export outside the State. As the turnover of the former transactions was less than Rs. 10,000/- the Tribunal held that the turnover was exempt under Section 3 (3) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act.

(2.) The State of Andhra questions the correctness of the finding of the Tribunal. The question falls to be considred on a construction of Rule 16 (2) of the Turnover and Assessment Rules. The said rule reads :

(3.) This summarises in our view, correctly and neatly the scope of Rule 16 (2) (ii) of the Rules. A Divisional Bench of this Court, of which one of us ( Chief Justice ) was a member, in the Government of Andhra represented by the Dy. Commissioner of Com. Taxes, Ananthapur and others v. Messrs. N. Nagendrappa, P. Hussain peeran saheb and others" construed the said provisions and expressed the view much to the same effect. The Divisional Bench stated :