Just a moment...
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 inter-State sales falling under section 8(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 could be taxed when the same goods were not taxable under the corresponding State sales tax law.
Analysis: Section 8(2) requires inter-State sales not covered by section 8(1) to be treated as if they were intra-State sales for the purpose of calculation, at the same rates and in the same manner as would apply under the appropriate State law. The deeming language does not create an independent charging provision under the Central Act. It only brings in the State law mechanism for computing tax, and the deeming of the dealer as liable under the State law is only to effect that calculation. If the State enactment imposes no tax on the transaction, the Central Act does not impose one either. The provision cannot be read so that its latter part destroys its opening mandate that the tax is to be calculated as under the State law.
Conclusion: The inter-State sales were not liable to tax under section 8(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 because the corresponding State law did not impose tax on them.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 8(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 is only a machinery provision that adopts the appropriate State law for computation of tax on inter-State sales, and it does not create liability where no liability exists under the State enactment.