Skip to content


Murugan and Co., Tuticorin, by Partner Sudalaimuthu Pillai Vs. State of Madras, Represented by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tuticorin, South - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberTax Revn. Case No. 101 of 1953
Judge
Reported inAIR1954Mad1090; (1954)IIMLJ682
ActsGovernment of India Act, 1935; Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 - Sections 3
AppellantMurugan and Co., Tuticorin, by Partner Sudalaimuthu Pillai
RespondentState of Madras, Represented by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tuticorin, South
Appellant AdvocateK.R. Rama Iyer, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateGovt. Pleader
DispositionPetition dismissed
Cases ReferredCo. Ltd. v. State of Madras
Excerpt:
.....persons, whose character and antecedents were beyond and shadow of doubt alone, are permitted entry into the police service of the state. the rule is only a reflection of the intention of the government to maintain purity of administration. the rule merely provides a check post or a filter point, to ensure that only those, who had a clean record of personal life, are admitted into the system. that the existing system, has already come under heavy dose of criticism, cannot be swept under the carpet. therefore, as an employer, the government is entitled to prescribe, especially in a disciplined force like the police force, such a restriction at the entry level. there cannot be a dispute about the proposition that an employer has the right to prescribe any qualifications for..........export duty in entry 44 oflist no. 1 of the government of india act of1935, i.e., customs, including export duties, andtherefore the levy was not justified. as regardsthe other arguments, the decision, just pronouncedin -- ' : air1954mad932 (a) governs this casealso. the additional argument does not require serious consideration. the sales-tax is a tax on transactions of sale. it is in no sense a tax on goods exported outside a territory. the sphere of the two taxes are entirely different, and it is impossible to consider the sales tax in substance or in effect as a tax on goods by reason of the taxable event of export. there is no justification, therefore, for holding that tax is really a tax in the nature of an export duty, which is within the purview of entry 44 of list i of viith.....
Judgment:

Satyanarayana Rao, J.

1. The relevant assessment year in this case is 1949-50, and the turnover in dispute is Rs. 1,95,212-3-2 relating to export of onions before 26th January 1951.

2. Here also the assessment was justified underthe explanation 2 to Section 2 (h) introduced by theAmending Act of 1947. The learned counsel, whileadopting the arguments, which were addressedby the petitioner's advocate, in -- 'Louis Dreyfus& Co. Ltd. v. State of Madras', : AIR1954Mad932 (A) in which we have just now delivered judgment, raised an additional point, that the tax inquestion was really an export duty in Entry 44 ofList No. 1 of the Government of India Act of1935, i.e., customs, including export duties, andtherefore the levy was not justified. As regardsthe other arguments, the decision, just pronouncedin -- ' : AIR1954Mad932 (A) governs this casealso.

The additional argument does not require serious consideration. The sales-tax is a tax on transactions of sale. It is in no sense a tax on goods exported outside a territory. The sphere of the two taxes are entirely different, and it is impossible to consider the sales tax in substance or in effect as a tax on goods by reason of the taxable event of export. There is no justification, therefore, for holding that tax is really a tax in the nature of an export duty, which is within the purview of Entry 44 of List I of VIIth schedule of the Government of India Act of 1935.

3. We therefore reject the argument and dismiss the petition with costs Rs. 250.


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