Skip to content


State of Tamil Nadu Vs. C.K. Gajapathy and Co. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberTax Case No. 784 of 1983 (Revision No. 284 of 1983)
Judge
Reported in[1984]57STC137(Mad)
AppellantState of Tamil Nadu
RespondentC.K. Gajapathy and Co.
Advocates:K.S. Bakthavatsalam, Additional Government Pleader
Cases Referred and State of Tamil Nadu v. Chamundeswari Enterprises
Excerpt:
- - as a matter of fact, if that were to be the position, all registered dealers would like to have their registration cancelled for the purpose of escaping from tax......also produced the bills of its purchase to show that it purchased the goods from a local dealer, messrs. premier steel distributors, carrying on business at no. 27, ravanier street, madras-3. the fact that the stainless steel vessels sold by the assessee have been purchased from a local dealer cannot be disputed in view of the bills of purchase dated 30th june, 1980, and 1st july, 1980, produced by the assessee. the only contention urged by the revenue is that even though the purchases are from a local dealer, the local dealer's registration certificate having been cancelled even before the date of purchase, the sales could not be taxed, and therefore, the sales by the assessee should be taxed as first sales. the tribunal considering the contention of the revenue, held.....
Judgment:

Ramanujam, J.

1. The disputed turnover in this case is Rs. 29,108.07. The said sum represents the sales turnover of stainless steel vessels in the hands of the assessee. The assessee's contention was that the vessels sold by it on a turnover of Rs. 29,108.07 cannot be taxed as they are second sales. The assessee-company also produced the bills of its purchase to show that it purchased the goods from a local dealer, Messrs. Premier Steel Distributors, carrying on business at No. 27, Ravanier Street, Madras-3. The fact that the stainless steel vessels sold by the assessee have been purchased from a local dealer cannot be disputed in view of the bills of purchase dated 30th June, 1980, and 1st July, 1980, produced by the assessee. The only contention urged by the Revenue is that even though the purchases are from a local dealer, the local dealer's registration certificate having been cancelled even before the date of purchase, the sales could not be taxed, and therefore, the sales by the assessee should be taxed as first sales. The Tribunal considering the contention of the Revenue, held that the purchases by the assessee being from a local dealer, and the sales by the local dealer being taxable sales, the question whether he is a registered dealer or not is immaterial. In this view, the Tribunal held that the disputed turnover represents the assessee's second sales and they are entitled to be exempted as second sales. That decision of the Tribunal has been challenged before us on the ground that the local dealer who sold the goods to the assessee had no valid registration certificate, his registration certificate having been cancelled earlier to the date of his purchases but notified later on 31st December, 1980, in the Commercial Taxes Bulletin, and that since the goods had been purchased by the assessee at a time when his vendor had no valid registration certificate, the assessee's sales should be taken as first sales. We do not see how the Revenue could put forward such a contention. If the assessee is able to show that there has been merely a taxable sale and its sale was only a second sale, it is entitled to claim exemption of its sales as second sales. In this case, Messrs. Premier Steel Distributors are admittedly dealers in stainless steel-wares. Even assuming as contended by the Revenue that they did not have a valid registration certificate, their sales are admittedly taxable. It is not the case of the Revenue that all sales effected by unregistered dealers are not liable to be taxed under the Act. As a matter of fact, if that were to be the position, all registered dealers would like to have their registration cancelled for the purpose of escaping from tax. Therefore, we are not in a position to accept the contention of the learned Government Pleader that merely because Messrs. Premier Steel Distributors were not registered dealers at the time when they sold the goods to the assessee, their sales are not taxable sales. It is not the case of the Revenue that Messrs. Premier Steel Distributors are not dealers and the sales effected by them were only casual and the sales have not been effected in their capacity as registered dealers. Once Messrs. Premier Steel Distributors are found to be dealers engaged in the manufacture or purchase or in the business of purchase and sale of stainless steel vessels, all sales effected by them are taxable sales. It has been held by this Court in Govindan & Co. v. State of Tamil Nadu [1975] 35 STC 50 and State of Tamil Nadu v. Chamundeswari Enterprises [1983] 52 STC 124 that if there is a prior sale in the State, the subsequent sales cannot be taken to be exigible for tax under the Act as second sales. The goods in question are admittedly governed by single point scheme of taxation. In this view of the matter, we do not have any justification for interfering with the order of the Tribunal. The tax case is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.


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