1958 (10) TMI 33 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court Upholds Tax on Groundnut Purchase, Clarifies Interstate Sales Tax Rules.

Berar Oil Industries and Another Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Anantapur

Berar Oil Industries and Another Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Anantapur - [1959] 10 STC 199 (AP) Issues Involved:1. Taxation on the purchase of groundnut kernel.2. Taxability of sales completed in other states.3. Authority to levy tax on the purchase of groundnuts.4. Timing of tax imposition on purchased goods.5. Withdrawal of rebate on refined oil.6. Application of Article 14 of the Constitution regarding the withdrawal of rebate.7. Taxation of purchases made by the petitioner in Andhra Pradesh.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Taxation on the Purchase of Groundnut Kernel:The court addressed whether the term 'groundnut' includes 'groundnut kernel.' It was decided that the expression 'groundnut' is comprehensive enough to include the kernel. Thus, the contention that tax cannot be levied on the purchase of groundnut kernel was negatived.2. Taxability of Sales Completed in Other States:The court examined whether sales completed in other states but delivered in Andhra Pradesh could be taxed. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal initially ruled in favor of the petitioner based on Article 286 of the Constitution. However, the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, 1956, restored the law that allows taxation in the state where the delivery is made. The court affirmed that transactions where sales are completed in one state but delivery is made in another state fall within the scope of the Explanation to Article 286, making them taxable in the state of delivery.3. Authority to Levy Tax on the Purchase of Groundnuts:The argument that the Sales Tax Act does not empower the Revenue to levy tax on the purchase of groundnuts was rejected. The court clarified that Section 3 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, is the charging section, and Rule 4(2) of the Turnover and Assessment Rules, 1939, specifies that the purchase of certain goods, including groundnuts, constitutes turnover. Therefore, the department has the authority to levy tax at the purchase point.4. Timing of Tax Imposition on Purchased Goods:The petitioner argued that the tax should be imposed only when the purchased goods are sold. The court found no provision in the Act or Rules requiring the department to wait until the goods are sold. Once it is established that tax can be levied on the purchase of certain goods, the department is not obligated to wait for the sale of those goods. This submission was overruled.5. Withdrawal of Rebate on Refined Oil:The court examined the withdrawal of rebate on refined oil. The petitioner argued that under Section 3(5), proviso (ii) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, the government should not tax the sale of goods already taxed at the purchase point. The court held that the term 'such goods' does not include products derived from the original goods, such as refined oil. The decision to withdraw the rebate was within the government's competence and did not contravene the main provision of the enactment.6. Application of Article 14 of the Constitution:The petitioner contended that the withdrawal of the rebate violated Article 14 of the Constitution, which ensures equality before the law. The court rejected this argument, stating that the classification of crude oil and refined oil has a reasonable basis and serves the objective of encouraging the export of oil. Therefore, the withdrawal of the rebate does not violate the principle of equality before the law.7. Taxation of Purchases Made by the Petitioner in Andhra Pradesh:The petitioner, with a branch in Adoni, Andhra Pradesh, challenged the tax levied on purchases made in Andhra Pradesh but delivered outside the state. The court found that the goods were delivered to the petitioner's agent in Andhra Pradesh, who then transported them to the principal place of business. This does not constitute interstate transactions exempted by the Explanation to Article 286. Therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay tax on these purchases.Conclusion:The court dismissed the arguments presented by the petitioners and upheld the tax levied on the purchase of groundnut kernel, the authority to levy tax at the purchase point, and the withdrawal of the rebate on refined oil. The court also ruled that the transactions in question are taxable in Andhra Pradesh, where the delivery was made. The petitions were dismissed, and the tax revision cases were decided in favor of the state, with costs awarded to the respondents.