JADHAVJEE LALJEE Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS tax revision case involves the interpretation of the words "or, as the case may be, could have obtained" occurring in the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act. We shall first state the facts which give rise to the said question.

(2.) THE petitioner Jadhavjee Laljee is a registered dealer in Andhra Pradesh. He purchased a consignment of horse-gram (kulthi) from a Maharashtra dealer. He purchased the same while the goods were in inter-State movement, by obtaining an endorsement on the concerned railway receipts. In turn, he sold it to another dealer in Andhra Pradesh. Horse-gram is wholly exempt from sales tax under the Maharashtra Sales Tax Act. The petitioner did not furnish form E-I prescribed by the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, nor did he obtain the C form prescribed by section 8 (4) (a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, from his purchaser. On these facts, the Commercial Tax Officer, Nirmal, included the relevant turnover in a sum of Rs. 1,25,067. 40, in the turnover of the petitioner and levied Central sales tax thereon at the rate of 10 per cent. An appeal preferred to the Assistant Commissioner failed, as also a further appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal held, relying upon the language of the proviso to section 9 (1) of the Act, that inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to obtain the C form from his purchaser, tax has to be, and can be levied on the sale effected by him (second sale in the course of inter-State trade) and collected by the State of Andhra Pradesh for the reason that the petitioner is a registered dealer within this State. It was observed that the petitioner could have obtained the C form in connection with the purchase of horse-gram from this State and, therefore, this State is the appropriate State to levy the tax.

(3.) ON the other hand, Sri A. Venkataramana, the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, supports the reasoning and conclusion of the Tribunal and submits that the aforesaid words in the proviso to section 9 (1) were put in to take in precisely a case of this nature and that, therefore, the levy of Central sales tax by the State of Andhra Pradesh is perfectly valid and competent. Section 3 of the Act sets out when a sale or purchase of goods shall be deemed to have taken place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. Section 6 is the charging section. All sales of goods, other than electrical energy, effected by a dealer in the course of inter-State trade or commerce are liable to Central sales tax at the prescribed rates. Section 7 provides for the registration of dealers, and section 8 prescribes the rates at which the Central sales tax shall be levied on sales effected in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. Section 9 deals with levy and collection of tax and penalties. Sub-section (1) thereof reads as follows :