Subsequent sales and statutory incorporation by reference: missing Form E upheld taxability, but turnover enhancement was invalid.

Subsequent sales made during movement of goods were treated as taxable by the State from which the assessee obtained the Form C declarations because Form E certificates were not produced, placing the transactions outside section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act and within the proviso to section 9(1). The appellate authority could not enhance turnover in the assessee's appeal by importing section 31(3) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act through section 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, because powers under an adopted statute are not carried forward by later amendments unless the adopting provision clearly so provides. The assessment was upheld, but the turnover enhancement for the last three items was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the taxing State had jurisdiction to assess subsequent sales effected during the movement of goods when the assessee had not produced Form E certificates but had produced Form C declarations. (ii) Whether the appellate authority could enhance the turnover in an assessee's appeal by applying section 31(3) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 through section 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Issue (i): Whether the taxing State had jurisdiction to assess subsequent sales effected during the movement of goods when the assessee had not produced Form E certificates but had produced Form C declarations.

Analysis: The turnover from the subsequent sales was held to fall within the proviso to section 9(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Since the assessee did not produce Form E certificates, the sales were treated as outside the ambit of section 6(2) of that Act, and such sales were consequently taxable by the State from which the assessee obtained the Form C declarations.

Conclusion: The jurisdiction objection failed and the assessment was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellate authority could enhance the turnover in an assessee's appeal by applying section 31(3) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 through section 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Analysis: The Court held that a provision adopted by reference does not carry later amendments unless the adopting legislation clearly so provides. On that principle, the enhancement power available under section 31(3) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 could not be imported through section 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 so as to justify enhancement in the assessee's appeal.

Conclusion: The enhancement of the last three items was invalid and the assessee succeeded on this point.

Final Conclusion: The assessment was upheld on the jurisdiction issue, but the enhancement of turnover in appeal was set aside for the last three items, resulting in partial relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute adopts another enactment by reference, later amendments or ancillary powers under the adopted law are not imported unless the adopting provision clearly evinces that intention.

---