Declared goods and inter-State resale: State sales tax applies first, with refund as the statutory remedy if conditions are met.

Declared goods bought and sold within a State remained liable to State sales tax at the intra-State stage, even if they were later sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce; the statutory scheme treated refund, not exemption, as the remedy where the prescribed conditions were met. Section 15(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act and Rule 27-A were read together as a levy-and-refund framework, so the distinction between "levied" and "levied and collected" did not eliminate the initial charge. The Tribunal's view that such turnover could not be taxed under the State Act at all was inconsistent with that scheme and was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether declared goods purchased and sold within the State but subsequently sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce were exempt from State sales tax at the stage of intra-State sale, or only entitled the dealer to refund after levy and collection of tax. (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that such turnover could not be taxed under the State Act at all.

Issue (i): Whether declared goods purchased and sold within the State but subsequently sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce were exempt from State sales tax at the stage of intra-State sale, or only entitled the dealer to refund after levy and collection of tax.

Analysis: Section 15(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act and the proviso to section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act were read as complementary provisions. Section 6 subjected declared goods to tax under the State law, but limited the levy to one stage and at the prescribed rate. Rule 27-A provided the machinery for refund where goods already taxed under the State law were later sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. On that scheme, the liability to State tax arose first, and refund was the statutory relief if the conditions of the rule were satisfied. The distinction between "levied" and "levied and collected" did not alter the substance of the charge. The earlier decisions relied on by the dealer were held not to support an exemption from levy.

Conclusion: The goods were not exempt from State tax at the stage of intra-State sale; the dealer was only entitled, if otherwise eligible, to seek refund after levy and collection.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that such turnover could not be taxed under the State Act at all.

Analysis: The Tribunal had treated the turnover as outside the State levy on the footing that tax should be imposed only under the Central sales tax law. That view was held inconsistent with the text and effect of section 6, section 15(b), and rule 27-A. The statutory change made by the amendment to section 15 showed that the previous bar on levy had been replaced by a system of levy followed by refund. The Tribunal therefore erred in setting aside the assessment on the disputed turnover.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was not justified in excluding the turnover from State taxation; its order on that point was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed because the assessment under the State law was upheld, while the tax revision succeeded to the extent that the Tribunal's contrary view was reversed. The governing rule is that declared goods may be taxed under the State Act at the prescribed stage and rate, with refund being the statutory remedy where the goods are later sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce.

Ratio Decidendi: Where declared goods are taxed under the State sales tax law, subsequent inter-State sale does not negate the State levy; it only gives rise to a claim for refund if the statutory conditions are fulfilled.

---