Single-point sales tax concession cannot be denied by an account-keeping rule; second purchase turnover needed fresh verification.

Rule 26(13) of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 was treated as an account-keeping provision and not a mandatory condition for denying the statutory concession under section 3(2) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The provision was described as an absolute single-point levy for goods in the First Schedule, so the concession depended on showing that the turnover was not at the specified point of taxation. Although section 10 placed the burden on the assessee and raised a presumption, the revenue authorities had not made a satisfactory finding on the materials to disprove that the purchases were second purchases. The disputed turnover was therefore remitted for fresh consideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether rule 26(13) of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 was mandatory so as to deprive the assessee of the concession under section 3(2) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and whether the assessee had established that the turnover represented second purchases entitled to single point taxation.

Analysis: Rule 26(13) was held to be only a manner of keeping accounts and not a mandatory condition for availing the statutory concession. Section 3(2) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 was treated as an absolute provision in respect of goods in the First Schedule, making tax payable only at the point specified therein, and the concession depended on showing that the transaction was not at the specified point. The Court further noted that section 10 raised a presumption and placed the burden on the assessee, but the revenue authorities had not recorded a satisfactory finding on the materials to show that the purchases were not second purchases.

Conclusion: Rule 26(13) did not bar the assessee from claiming single point taxation, and the issue whether the turnover of Rs. 6,227 represented second purchases had to be reconsidered by the assessing authority.

Final Conclusion: The revision was allowed and the matter was sent back for fresh consideration on the disputed turnover.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural account-keeping rule cannot override an absolute statutory concession for single point levy, and denial of that concession requires a proper finding that the sales or purchases were not at the specified point.

---