Skip to content


The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Vs. C. Saravanan and Co. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberTax Case No. 56 of 1976 (Revision No. 14 of 1976)
Judge
Reported in[1980]45STC94(Mad)
AppellantThe Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
RespondentC. Saravanan and Co.
Appellant AdvocateAdditional Government Pleader
Respondent AdvocateT.S. Viswanatha Rao, Adv.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Cases ReferredSales Tax v. Cooper
Excerpt:
- .....under section 38 of the tamil nadu general sales tax act, 1959, read with section 9(3) of the central sales tax act, against the order of the sales tax appellate tribunal dated 27th august, 1973. the assessee was assessed under the central sales tax act for the year 1970-71 on a turnover of rs. 5,42,720. the assessee appealed against the assessment questioning the assessability of the entire turnover before the appellate assistant commissioner. the appellate assistant commissioner did not accept the assessee's claim for exemption. the matter thereafter was taken up in the appeal before the tribunal. the contention before the tribunal was that the turnover for the entire year was exempt in accordance with the notification issued on 13th july, 1970, granting full exemption with.....
Judgment:

Sethuraman, J.

1. This revision has been filed by the State under Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, read with Section 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 27th August, 1973. The assessee was assessed under the Central Sales Tax Act for the year 1970-71 on a turnover of Rs. 5,42,720. The assessee appealed against the assessment questioning the assessability of the entire turnover before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner did not accept the assessee's claim for exemption. The matter thereafter was taken up in the appeal before the Tribunal. The contention before the Tribunal was that the turnover for the entire year was exempt in accordance with the notification issued on 13th July, 1970, granting full exemption with reference to 'jaggery sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce in respect of which tax has been levied and collected at the point of first purchase under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959'. It is not in dispute that this is a case in which tax had been levied and collected at the point of first purchase in the State under the State Act.

2. The question is whether the inter-State transaction for the whole year, i.e., 1st April, 1970, to 31st March, 1971, is liable to be exempt or whether the exemption operates only with reference to the period subsequent to the notification, i.e., 13th July, 1970. In this connection, reference was made to a decision of the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Cooper & Co. [1968] 22 S.T.C. 111. The Central Sales Tax Act came into force on 1st July, 1957. A notification was issued on 16th November, 1957. The question was whether the notification had come into effect on 1st July, 1957, or only from 16th November, 1957. The Bombay High Court held that the notification was effective from 1st July, 1957, that is, the date on which the Act came into force. In coming to this conclusion, the learned Judges have also referred to the fact that the assessment was with reference to a particular year and that if the sales tax was levied and collected with reference to the period subsequent to the coming into force of the Central Sales, Tax Act, there would be anomalies. In that case, having regard to the scheme of the Act, it was held that the notification should be given effect to from 1st July, 1957.

3. We do not find anything in principle which would differentiate the present case from the one decided by the Bombay High Court in Commissioner oj Sales Tax v. Cooper & Co. [1968] 22 S.T.C. 111. Following the said judgment, we hold that the notification has to be taken into account for the whole year 1970-71 only and not merely with reference to the period subsequent to 13th July, 1970, the date on which the notification came to be issued. Any other conclusion would render the assessee being liable to tax to one part of the year and not being liable to another part of the year. Unless there is anything in the notification itself which shows that the notification is to be operative only from a particular date, a reasonable construction of the notification would be that it comes into force from the 1st day of the financial year in which the notification is issued. The revision fails and is dismissed. No costs.


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