Deemed first point of sale limits resale tax to the differential value and avoids double taxation on the same goods.

A conjoint reading of section 8(1)(a), Explanations 1 and 2, and rule 12 under the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 indicates that where resale price exceeds the prescribed margin, the deemed first point of sale shifts to the resale stage. The statutory scheme does not permit double taxation within the State, so where tax has already been paid at the earlier purchase stage, the levy on the dealer is confined to the difference between the purchase price and the resale price. Any amount actually collected from consumers as tax remained a factual matter for verification by the tax authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether, under the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, the resale by the dealer became the first point of sale when the resale price exceeded 40 per cent of the purchase price; whether the amount collected as surcharge and remitted to the Oil Pool Account formed part of the sale price; and whether sales tax could be levied on the entire resale amount so as to result in double taxation, or only on the difference between the resale price and the purchase price.

Analysis: A conjoint reading of section 8(1)(a) and Explanations 1 and 2, read with rule 12, showed that where the resale price exceeded the prescribed margin, the second point of sale was deemed to be the first point of sale. The statutory scheme did not contemplate double taxation within the State. Since tax had already been paid at the stage of purchase from BRPL, the levy in the hands of the appellant could extend only to the difference between the purchase price and the resale price. The Court also noted a factual dispute on whether the appellant had in fact collected sales tax on the entire resale value from consumers, which affected the direction regarding deposit of any collected amount.

Conclusion: The levy could not be imposed on the entire resale amount in a manner that would amount to double taxation, and the appellant was liable, in principle, only on the differential amount. The factual question whether tax had actually been collected from consumers was left to be determined by the tax authority.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was disposed of with a limited remand for factual verification on collection of tax, while the legal position on the scope of levy under the deeming provision was settled in the appellant's favour in principle.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing statute deems a resale to be the first point of sale upon crossing a prescribed margin, the levy cannot be applied so as to tax the same goods twice in the same State, and the charge is confined to the differential value where tax has already been paid at the earlier point.

---