TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tax liability ruling: Last licensed dealer liable for sales to unlicensed exporters</h1> The High Court of Andhra Pradesh ruled that tax liability under rule 16(2)(ii) of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules falls on the last licensed dealer, ... - Issues:Interpretation of rule 16(2)(ii) of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939 concerning taxation on untanned hides and skins sold by licensed dealers to unlicensed dealers who export them out of the State of Andhra Pradesh.Detailed Analysis:The judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh addressed the common questions raised in revision petitions regarding the interpretation of rule 16(2)(ii) of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules. The petitioners, licensed dealers in untanned hides and skins, sold these goods to unlicensed dealers who then exported them out of the state. Taxing authorities imposed taxes on the petitioners for sales to unlicensed dealers who further sold the goods in Madras State, under rule 16(2)(ii). The petitioners contested the imposition of tax, arguing that tax should only be collected from the persons who last purchased the goods and exported them to Madras. However, their appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was dismissed, leading to the filing of revision cases raising similar issues.The primary contention revolved around whether rule 16(2)(ii) included unlicensed dealers for tax liability assessment. The petitioners relied on a Full Bench decision of the Court in a previous case but the Court found this reliance misplaced. The Court emphasized that rule 16(2)(ii) specifically refers to licensed dealers and does not encompass unlicensed dealers. Additionally, a specific provision in rule 16(5) addresses sales by dealers other than licensed dealers, subjecting them to taxation on each sale occasion. The overall scheme of the rules, combined with relevant sections of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, aims to benefit licensed dealers, not unlicensed ones. Therefore, the Court concluded that tax liability under rule 16(2)(ii) falls on the last licensed dealer, not the last unlicensed dealer, in the chain of transactions.The Court further analyzed the relevant rules, particularly rule 16(2) which outlines the levy of taxes on licensed dealers in hides or skins either when sold to a tanner in the State or for export outside the State. Sub-rules (i) and (ii) of rule 16(2) specify the tax points for sales to tanners and exports, respectively, with a clear emphasis on licensed dealers. The judgment highlighted that the absence of a specific reference to licensed dealers in clause (ii) reinforces the exclusion of unlicensed dealers from the tax liability under this rule. The Court's interpretation was based on a holistic reading of the rules and the legislative intent to favor licensed dealers in such transactions.In conclusion, the Court upheld the tax collection by the department from the petitioners for sales to unlicensed persons who exported the goods to Madras State. The revision petitions were dismissed, and costs were imposed on the petitioners as per the specified amounts for each case. The Court's decision affirmed that tax liability under rule 16(2)(ii) pertains to the last licensed dealer in the transaction chain, emphasizing the protection and benefits accorded to licensed dealers under the relevant tax rules.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
