Declared goods taxability on first intra-State sale upheld where no purchase tax had been levied under the statutory scheme.

Declared goods purchased outside Bihar remained liable to sales tax on their first intra-State sale where no purchase tax had actually been levied in the State. Section 3A, read with section 5(2), was explained as creating an either-or tax scheme: the taxable incidence falls on purchase or on sale, but not both. The prescribed rules could not override the statute's plain language. The classification was treated as non-discriminatory, with no breach of Article 14 or of the State's taxing competence under Entry 54, List II. The levy on the disputed transactions was therefore valid and the constitutional challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether declared goods purchased from outside the State of Bihar, which had not borne purchase tax in the State, were nevertheless liable to sales tax on sale within the State under section 3A of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959, and whether the provision was invalid as discriminatory or contrary to the legislative competence under the Constitution.

Analysis: Section 3A empowered the State to notify goods liable to purchase tax and provided that where purchase tax had in fact been levied on such goods, no general sales tax or special sales tax would be payable on their sale. Read with section 5(2), the scheme showed that the taxable incidence was intended to fall either on purchase or on sale, depending on the factual circumstances, but not both. Where declared goods were purchased outside Bihar, no purchase tax could be levied within the State, and the goods therefore remained liable to sales tax at the point of first sale by the registered dealer. The rule and form prescribed under the Rules could not override the plain language of the Act. The classification did not create discriminatory taxation because the same rate applied to the relevant taxable event, and there was no infringement of Article 14 or constitutional limitation on the State's taxing power under Entry 54, List II.

Conclusion: The sales tax levy on the disputed transactions was valid, section 3A was constitutionally sustainable, and the challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing provision clearly provides that declared goods are exempt from sales tax only if purchase tax has actually been levied, the State may lawfully subject such goods to one taxable incidence or the other, and subordinate forms or rules cannot displace that statutory scheme.

---