Sales tax deduction limited to intra-State taxable turnover; constitutional challenge failed for only indirect trade impact.

The sales tax deduction for cocoanuts and copra used in producing oil and cake was confined to the concessionary scheme for taxable sales within the State and was aimed at avoiding double taxation where purchase tax on copra and sales tax on oil could both arise. Outside-State sales of oil did not qualify for the deduction because no sales tax liability arose on that turnover under the Act. The challenge under Articles 286, 301 and 303(1) also failed, as the provisions were held not to impose a direct and immediate restraint on trade; any impact on inter-State commerce was only indirect or consequential.

---

---

Issues: Whether a registered manufacturer of cocoanut oil and cake was entitled to deduct, under the sales tax rules, the value of cocoanuts and copra converted into oil and cake when the oil was sold outside the State, and whether the denial of that deduction offended Articles 286, 301, or 303(1) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The deduction under rule 7(1)(k) read with rule 20(2) was intended to avoid double taxation in cases where both purchase tax on copra and sales tax on oil could otherwise be levied within the State. The definitions of "sale" and "turnover" in section 2 of the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act, 1125, would ordinarily bring the outside-State sales within turnover, but those definitions could not be applied mechanically where the concessionary scheme itself was limited to taxable sales within the State. The Court held that the concession could not be claimed where the oil sale was outside the State and no sales tax liability on that turnover arose under the Act. The impugned provisions also did not violate Part XIII of the Constitution, because they did not impose a direct and immediate restriction on trade or commerce, and any effect on inter-State trade was only indirect or consequential.

Conclusion: The denial of the deduction was valid, and the petition failed. The provisions did not infringe Articles 286, 301, or 303(1) of the Constitution of India.

---