Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →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 the turnover from inter-State sales was liable to tax under Section 8(1) and Section 8(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, or fell within the exemption provided by the proviso to Section 8(1).
Analysis: Section 8(1) imposes tax on sales in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, while Section 8(2) limits the tax burden where the corresponding State law would not have attracted tax on the same transactions. The turnover covered by Section 8(2) could not be taxed because the related transactions were not taxable under the State sales tax law. As to the remaining turnover, the proviso to Section 8(1) had to be read as relating to the sale transaction itself, not merely to the goods in the abstract. The language of the proviso, though inexact, was construed in favour of the dealer because two reasonable interpretations were possible in a taxing provision. The exemption under the State law for the relevant purchase transaction was held to extend to the corresponding inter-State sale, so as to give effect to the legislative scheme and avoid defeating the benefit of the State exemption.
Conclusion: The disputed turnover was not liable to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and the levy was set aside in favour of the assessee.