Skip to content


P.K.P. Abdul Harkeen Sahib Vs. Mysore Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.T.A. No. 360/59-60, A.P. No. 222/59-60, No. 253/57-58/R.No. 1333/57-58 and Civil Petition No. 370
Judge
Reported in[1963]14STC578(Kar)
ActsCentral Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Sections 8, 8(1), 8(2) and 15
AppellantP.K.P. Abdul Harkeen Sahib
RespondentMysore Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore and ors.
Appellant AdvocateG.S. Ullal, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateD.M. Chandrasekhar, High Court Government Pleader
Excerpt:
.....only inference that can be drawn is that workman had worked for 240 days continuously in a year and is entitled to balance of amount of gratuity. orders of authorities upheld - ' 6. the above view had been unsuccessfully pressed before this court by the learned government pleader in c......the above decision is correct. 2. the disputed transactions in the present case are admittedly sale transactions. the sales in question were effected in the course of inter-state transactions and therefore the same is governed by the provisions of section 8 of the central sales tax act, 1956 (which shall be hereinafter referred to as the act). thus far, there is no dispute. it is also admitted that section 8(1) of the act is inapplicable to the facts of the present case. both the parties are agreed that the transactions in question, if liable to be taxed, have to be taxed under section 8(2) of the act. section 8(2) of the act provides : 'the tax payable by any dealer in any case not falling within sub-section (1) in respect of the sale by him of any goods in the course of inter-state.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Hegde, J.

1. The point raised in this petition is covered by the decision of a Bench of this Court (of which I was a Member) in C.R.Ps. Nos. 964 and 1393 of 1961 (Since reported as Yadalam Lakshminarasimhiah Setty & Sons v. State of Mysore [1962] 13 S.T.C. 583). The learned Government Pleader tried to persuade us that the decision of this Court in that case requires reconsideration. After having heard him carefully, we have come to the conclusion that the above decision is correct.

2. The disputed transactions in the present case are admittedly sale transactions. The sales in question were effected in the course of inter-State transactions and therefore the same is governed by the provisions of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (which shall be hereinafter referred to as the Act). Thus far, there is no dispute. It is also admitted that section 8(1) of the Act is inapplicable to the facts of the present case. Both the parties are agreed that the transactions in question, if liable to be taxed, have to be taxed under section 8(2) of the Act. section 8(2) of the Act provides :

'The tax payable by any dealer in any case not falling within sub-section (1) in respect of the sale by him of any goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce shall be calculated at the same rates and in the same manner as would have been done if the sale had, in fact, taken place inside the appropriate State, and for the purpose of making any such calculation any such dealer shall be deemed to be a dealer liable to pay tax under the sales tax law of the appropriate State, notwithstanding that he, in fact, may not be so liable under the law.'

3. In C.R.Ps. Nos. 964 and 1393 of 1961 (Since reported as Yadalam Lakshminarasimhiah Setty & Sons v. State of Mysore [1962] 13 S.T.C. 583), this Court had to decide the true scope of the expression 'at the same rates and in the same manner'. This Court also had to consider the true meaning of the words 'notwithstanding that he (dealer), in fact, may not be so liable under that law.' Therein this Court came to the conclusion that only such transactions as could have been taxed under the State law can be taxed under section 8(2) and not other transactions. Admittedly under the State law only purchase transactions could be taxed. Therefore, the sale transactions with which we were concerned in that case as in the present case would not have come within the mischief of that law. Hence section 8(2) was held to be inapplicable to the facts of that case.

4. Sri D. M. Chandrasekhar, the learned Government Pleader contended that the view taken by this Court in that above decision would run counter to the requirements of section 15 of the Act. We do not think that this contention is correct. Section 15 primarily provides for levying tax on declared goods. Section 15(b) makes it clear that the provisions contained in clause (a) of section 15 are inapplicable if the declared goods in question were intended for sale in inter-State trade or commerce. In other words, section 15 operates on a field totally different from the field covered by section 8. To put it differently section 8 deals with levying tax on sales effected in the course of inter-State transactions while section 15 deals with levying of tax on declared goods not covered by section 8. In that view no question of harmonious interpretation as contended for by the learned Government Pleader arises.

5. The learned Government Pleader invited our attention to two decisions of the Madras High Court which according to him support the view contended for by him. The first decision cited by him is the one in S. Mariappa Nadar and Others v. State of Madras ([1962] 13 S.T.C. 371), and the second is the one in M. A. Abbas & Co. v. State of Madras ([1962] 13 S.T.C. 433). We do not think that the first of the two decisions has any relevancy for our present purpose. It is true that certain observations found in the latter decision supports the view contended for by the learned Government Pleader. At page 435 of the report, we find the following observations :

'While no doubt the earlier part of section 8(2) specifies that the calculation of the Central sales tax shall be at the same rates and in the same manner as if the sale had taken place inside the appropriate State, the further part of the section lays down that the dealer shall be liable 'notwithstanding that he, in fact may not be so liable under that law'; that is to say, for the purpose of attaching the liability to Central sales tax, the fact that in respect of that transaction he may not be liable to tax under the local sales tax law is of no consequence.'

6. The above view had been unsuccessfully pressed before this Court by the learned Government Pleader in C.R.Ps. 964 and 1393 of 1961 ([1962] 13 S.T.C. 583). This Court has given reasons for not accepting that view and therefore, we see no reason to prefer the casual observations found in the above Madras decision to the view expressed by this Court in the earlier decision. The earlier decision is binding on this Bench and no case is made out for referring this matter to a Full Bench.

7. In the result, this petition is allowed and the order of the Tribunal set aside. No costs.

8. Petition allowed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //