K. Veeraswami, J.
1. There were five items of disputed turnover of which the first two were held to consist of inter-State sales and the rest were brought under the provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. An appeal in respect of the first two items failed. But an appeal as regards the rest of the items succeeded, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner holding that these three transactions too were of an inter-State character. But in disposing of the appeal in respect of the first two items, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner enhanced the assessment and brought to tax the last three items as well, but under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act. On a further appeal, the Tribunal declined to interfere.
2. Before us two points are urged for the assessee. The first is one of jurisdiction. The assessee purchased the goods under the five items from registered dealers in Rajasthan, where the goods are exempt from tax. The Rajasthan dealers, as is stated declined to give the assessee certificate in Form E. The goods were despatched from Rajasthan by rail and during their movement, the assessee transferred the documents of title thereto to certain purchasers in the Madras State, who are also registered dealers. Admittedly, the assessee obtained from authorities in this State declarations in C Forms in respect of the purchase made by him from out of State sellers. Also it is not in dispute that the assessee did not produce certificates in Form E from out of State purchasers. In such circumstances, the contention is that it is only the State of Rajasthan from which the goods moved that could at all tax the subsequent sale effected during the movement of the goods on rail and that therefore the authorities in this State will have no jurisdiction to assess the five items of the total turnover. We are unable to accept this contention. In our opinion, the entire turnover will fall within the ambit of the proviso to Section 9(1). It may be that the goods under the five items found a place in the certificate of registration of the registered dealer purchasing the goods as being intended for resale. Though the certificate itself is not produced, that however may not be material inasmuch as in point of fact the assessee produced the declarations in C Forms obtained from the authorities in this State. Nevertheless, inasmuch as certificate in E Form have not been produced as we said, the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 6 will come into play. Impliedly it would mean that the sales are not therefore within the ambit of Section 6(2). If resales or subsequent sales do not fall within the ambit of Section 6(2), they will attract the proviso to Section 9(1). It follows, therefore, that the State which can tax them is the State from which the assessee who effected the subsequent sale obtained declaration in Form C. The first point as to jurisdiction therefore fails.
3. The second point of the assessee is, however, one of substance. But this point is confined only to the last three items of turnover namely those covered by the sale bills Nos. 47/1 dated 12th July, 1960, 50/1 bearing the same date and 21/1 dated 3rd November, 1960. The argument is that since there was no bar under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 to enhance turnover in an appeal filed by an assessee, Section 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 will not attract Section 31(3) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The argument is clearly right. This is on the principle that where a Legislature makes a law adopting by reference certain provisions contained in a different Act, no intention of the legislature could be imputed that thereby any amendment should also become a part of the law which adopts by reference. This is on the principle that the legislature cannot abdicate its functions. It is not necessary to elaborate the question as it has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Haji J.A. Kareem Sait v. Dr. Commercial Tax Officer (1966) 18 S.T.C. 370, the principle of which has been followed in T.C. No. 57 of 1964.
4. The petition is allowed in respect of the last three items of the turnover we mentioned. The petitioner is entitled to his costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 100.