Declared goods and turnover computation under CST must follow Central law, not State deductions or refund claims.

Declared goods taxed under a State single-point levy remained subject to the Central Sales Tax Act's section 15 refund framework only where the statute expressly made the State levy refundable on inter-State sale; the assessees were not entitled to refund on that basis. Turnover under the Central Act had to be computed under its own charging provisions and prescribed rules, so excise duty could not be deducted by importing a State rule that allowed such deduction under the State sales tax law. The Central levy and turnover computation were therefore sustained without refund or deduction relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether tax collected under the Central Sales Tax Act was refundable on the footing that, in the case of declared goods subject to single-point levy under the State law, the State levy must give way to the Central levy; (ii) Whether excise duty could be deducted while computing turnover for assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act by applying the State Rules.

Issue (i): Whether tax collected under the Central Sales Tax Act was refundable on the footing that, in the case of declared goods subject to single-point levy under the State law, the State levy must give way to the Central levy.

Analysis: The scheme of the Central Sales Tax Act was read in the light of section 15 as amended, which expressly provides that where declared goods are taxed under the State law and are also sold in the course of inter-State trade, the State tax so levied shall be refunded in the manner provided by State law. The Madras Sales Tax Act, 1959, itself contained provisions under which declared goods were taxable only at the rate and point specified and the levy under the State Act was subject to refund when the same goods suffered Central tax on inter-State sale. The earlier Supreme Court construction of the Central Act was therefore applied in the setting of the Madras statute, but only to the extent that the State levy remained subject to the statutory refund mechanism.

Conclusion: The assessees were not entitled to refund on this ground, and the Central levy on the inter-State sales remained valid.

Issue (ii): Whether excise duty could be deducted while computing turnover for assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act by applying the State Rules.

Analysis: Turnover under the Central Act is the aggregate of sale prices determined in the prescribed manner. Rule-making power as to deductions in turnover was conferred on the Central Government, and the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 did not provide for deduction of excise duty. The State rule allowing such deduction governed assessments under the State Act, but could not be imported into assessments under the Central Act, where the charging provision and the prescribed rules were complete in themselves.

Conclusion: Excise duty was not deductible in computing turnover under the Central Sales Tax Act.

Final Conclusion: The petitions failed on all substantive grounds, and the tax demands were upheld without refund or turnover deduction relief.

Ratio Decidendi: The Central Sales Tax Act must be applied according to its own charging and turnover-computation provisions, and State-law exemptions or deductions are attracted only to the extent expressly incorporated by the Central Act or its rules; a State refund mechanism for declared goods can also operate only within the statutory framework that makes the State levy subject to refund when Central tax is imposed.

---