GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. NOONEY GOVINDARAJULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed against the order of the Andhra Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and it raises the question of the scope of the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, 1956.

(2.) The relevant facts may be briefly stated. The assessee was carrying on business in cotton yarn at Chirala. On 17th September, 1954, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Chirala, determined the assessee's turnover of business in cotton yarn that was purchased from non-resident dealers from 1st October, 1953, to 31st March, 1954, at Rs. 32, 360-8-6. Out of the said amount, a turnover of Rs. 19, 756-10-6 represented the transactions in respect of which delivery was given to the assessee in Chirala for consumption and payment was made through Bank at Chirala. The balance represented sales in respect of goods delivered to the agent of the assessee at Madras and booked by him there from to Chirala. On appeal, the Tribunal held that the assessee was the first dealer liable to tax in respect of the latter turnover and that he was not liable to tax on the former. Though the former transaction had inter-State elements as the goods were delivered for consumption in the Andhra State, the Tribunal, relying upon The State of Bombay v. United Motors (India) Ltd. (1953 4 S.T.C. 133), held against the assessee. On that finding, the Tribunal gave a direction to the assessing authority to revise the assessment. The Government filed the aforesaid revision questioning the finding of the Tribunal in so far as it was against them.

(3.) Learned Government Pleader contends that the decision of the Tribunal in so far as it held that the turnover representing sales possessing inter-State elements was liable to be taxed was wrong as it was based upon The State of Bombay v. United Motors (India) Ltd. (1953 4 S.T.C. 133), which was overruled by the Supreme Court in Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar (1955 6 S.T.C. 446). Learned counsel for the assessee, while conceding that on the basis of the Bengal Immunity case (1955 6 S.T.C. 446), the finding of the Tribunal may be wrong, seeks to sustain the said finding on the foot of the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act (VII of 1956). Section 2 of the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, 1956, reads :