Revised sales tax remedy and inter-State delivery proof shape exemption and revisional jurisdiction under the post-repeal regime.

A pending revision under the repealed Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 could not be recharacterised as an appeal under section 61(2) of the 1959 Act, because the saving provision required transfer only to the forum competent to deal with that proceeding under the new law; the prior revisional remedy was treated as having lapsed, and the Board of Revenue's revisional power was not barred. Sales of rice delivered outside Madras for consumption in Travancore were protected by the constitutional Explanation to Article 286(1)(a) when supported by proof, so turnover covered by affidavits was exempt, while the balance remained taxable for want of satisfactory evidence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a revision petition pending under the repealed Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 could be transferred under section 61(2) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and treated as an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, so as to bar the Board of Revenue from exercising revisional power under section 34 of the 1959 Act. (ii) Whether the turnover relating to sales of rice to dealers in Travancore State was exempt from tax because there was delivery outside the State for the purpose of consumption in the purchasing State under the constitutional Explanation to Article 286(1)(a).

Issue (i): Whether a revision petition pending under the repealed Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 could be transferred under section 61(2) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and treated as an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, so as to bar the Board of Revenue from exercising revisional power under section 34 of the 1959 Act.

Analysis: The saving provision in section 61(2) required pending proceedings to be transferred only to the authority who would have had jurisdiction to entertain that very proceeding under the new Act if it had been in force on the date of filing. Under the 1959 Act, the remedy of revision against an appellate order was taken away and no corresponding revisional authority existed for such a matter. A revision petition could not, by construction, be converted into an appeal merely because the new Act provided only an appeal. The saving clause in section 61(1) did not override the express language of section 61(2), and the prior revisional right was treated as having lapsed.

Conclusion: The pending revision could not be equated with an appeal, and the Board of Revenue was not barred from exercising revisional jurisdiction under section 34 read with section 61(2) of the 1959 Act.

Issue (ii): Whether the turnover relating to sales of rice to dealers in Travancore State was exempt from tax because there was delivery outside the State for the purpose of consumption in the purchasing State under the constitutional Explanation to Article 286(1)(a).

Analysis: For the period in question, if the assessee proved delivery outside Madras for consumption in the other State, the sales fell within the constitutional protection and were not taxable. Affidavits from four dealers established such delivery and consumption for a substantial part of the turnover. For the remaining balance, the assessee failed to produce satisfactory proof and the claim could not be accepted merely on difficulty in tracing purchasers or obtaining books.

Conclusion: The turnover covered by the four affidavits was not taxable, but the assessee failed to establish the exemption for the remaining turnover.

Final Conclusion: The revisional jurisdiction challenge failed, but the tax assessment was reduced to the extent of the turnover proved to have been delivered outside the State for consumption in the purchasing State.

Ratio Decidendi: A pending revision under a repealed sales tax law cannot be recharacterised as an appeal under the new law where the new statute has withdrawn that revisional remedy and no corresponding authority exists, and sales proved to have been delivered outside the State for consumption in the purchasing State are protected from tax by Article 286(1)(a).

---