Transferred revision jurisdiction upheld; exemption on member supplies rejected under binding precedent and statutory sale definition.

The High Court accepted jurisdiction over a revision transferred from the abolished Special Tribunal, holding that the pending matter could continue before the forum to which it stood transferred under the repealing statute. On the tax issue, it applied binding precedent that supplies by an incorporated body to its members fall within the statutory concept of sale, consistent with the constitutional deeming provision, and held that the assessee's claim to exemption on the purchase of Wattle Extract could not succeed. The revision was dismissed on the substantive exemption issue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Madras High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the transferred revision arising from the Special Tribunal proceedings. (ii) Whether the assessee was entitled to exemption on the purchase of Wattle Extract treated as the last purchase, in view of the statutory scheme and the earlier Division Bench decision.

Issue (i): Whether the Madras High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the transferred revision arising from the Special Tribunal proceedings.

Analysis: The revision had originally been admitted by the Special Tribunal and, after abolition of that Tribunal, stood transferred to the High Court under the repealing statute. The order under challenge had already entered the sphere of judicial scrutiny, and the Court accepted that the assessee, as dominus litis, could proceed before the forum to which the matter was transferred.

Conclusion: The Court held that it had jurisdiction to proceed with the transferred case.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee was entitled to exemption on the purchase of Wattle Extract treated as the last purchase, in view of the statutory scheme and the earlier Division Bench decision.

Analysis: The Court noted that the very question had already been decided against the assessee in earlier proceedings. It applied the prior Division Bench ruling holding that supplies by an incorporated body to its members fall within the taxable concept of sale under the statutory definition, and that the levy was in conformity with the constitutional deeming provision. On that basis, the claim for exemption on the disputed purchase did not survive.

Conclusion: The Court held that the issue was covered against the assessee and rejected the claim for exemption.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed on the substantive tax issue and was accordingly dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: When a statutory definition of sale brings supplies by an incorporated or association-like body to its members within tax liability, and the point is already concluded by binding precedent, the claim for exemption cannot succeed.

---