Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether purchase tax was leviable on sugarcane purchased by the sugar mills from growers under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, and whether section 4-B excluded Schedule B goods from purchase tax.
Analysis: Section 4(1) was treated as the charging provision levying tax both on sales and purchases, subject to sections 5 and 6. Section 6 exempted only the sale of goods in Schedule B, including agricultural produce sold by the grower himself, and did not exempt their purchase. Section 4-B was construed as a provision meant to identify and regulate purchase tax in specified situations involving goods other than those in Schedule B; it did not limit the general levy under section 4(1) or create an exemption for Schedule B goods. The definition of "purchase" in section 2(ff) was also held not to confine purchase tax only to Schedule C goods, because it extended to goods on the purchase whereof tax was payable under any provision of the Act. The exemption in section 4(1) for a dealer dealing exclusively in goods declared tax-free under section 6 was read as referring only to dealers selling such goods, not to a purchase-tax exemption.
Conclusion: Purchase tax was held payable on the purchase of sugarcane, and the challenge to the notice was rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute exempts only the sale of specified goods, the purchase of those goods remains taxable under the general charging provision unless the Act expressly exempts the purchase.